[tied] Re: HRIM

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> On 05-03-21 05:17, Gordon Barlow wrote:
>
> > English -ish derives from *-iskos.
> > (Richard)
> > <-ish> is from PGmc. *-iska-.
> > (Brian)
> >
> > Fair enough, and thank you. But what was the origin - or at

least the PIE

> > version - of *iska or *iskos? Second question is, please, what

happened to

> > the *wo of PIE, or *wos, as a colours-suffix? Is it represented

in modern

> > English?
>
> The protoform was *-isko-. The suffix is so complex phonologically

that

> it must have developed from the coalescence of shorter morphemes;

by

> PGmc. times, however, it was not analysable into smaller parts. As
> Richard has pointed out, the final *-s in *-isko-s is not part of

the

> suffix but a separate morpheme -- the nom.sg. ending of masculine

nouns

> and adjectives (cf. feminine *-iskah2 and neuter *-iskom; other
> grammatical cases of course had their own endings). In Proto-

Germanic,

> *-iskos became *-iskaz via regular sound changes; it is reflected

as

> Gothic -isks, Old English -isc (= Modern Eng. -ish), Old Norse -

iskr.

>

For those that are willing to consider a Basque substrate in Western
Europe:
Basque has an adjective-forming suffix -sko (suffix -s- + adjective-
forming suffix -ko), eg 'urhe' "gold", 'urhesko' "golden".
Further it has adverb-forming suffixes -ski and -ska.
(All according to Löpelmann.)

Torsten