--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > *mon-h1 it¨®-
> >
> > *mon-h1 i-tó-
> >
> > that is.
>
> I suspected that. The really bad thing is the laryngeal which is
> simply excluded by the fact that causatives show the working of
> Brugmann's law: ma:náyati : janáyati; ma:nitá- : janitá-. As
always it
> does not hold 100%, very far from it in fact, but there is an
> indisputable core of forms that do comply with the rule, so there
> cannot have been a laryngeal in the suffix initial.
I can see that.
Also the function
> is bizarre: causative is a strengthening of transitivity, while
> stative is rather the opposite.
>
Nonono. You shouldn't see this as derived from the stative, but as
consisting of two words: a verbal stem in the instrumental (*-h1)
and the verb *ye- "impel" in the present.
Since I'll have to do without the laryngeal, I'll try:
*mon éy-o-m-
*mon éy-e-s-
etc
with *ey- as a thematic stem.
The question is, is *mon "state of thinking(?)" possible as a stem,
or as an individual word (cf. *memor- "memory" and *memos-
(?) "meat")? I was wondering that since *-(e)x/k- is an
individuating (or collectivising) suffix did the stem before it make
sense alone? To individuate (or collectivise) something, that
something would have to exist, at least as a an idea? In other
words, is a 'toga' a piece of *tog (at least that would explain the
-o-, no matter how phonetically complicated PIE got, words had to
have at least one consonant)?
BTW does the f. and n. gen.pl., which is endingless in Russian, have
a trace of the original *-om in OCS?
Torsten