Re: [tied] Re: h1,h2,h3 in Albanian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 3:35 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: h1,h2,h3 in Albanian


> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > PIE suffix "-ro" is not a variant of "-no", Piotr, semantically is
> > very different ...and I still maintain that -ro means "like-X/similar-
> > with-X" even in a verbal context (doesn't matter the context in
> > fact) ...Please put some examples/contra-examples here to check
> > together if I'm right or wrong...

***
Patrick:

In my opinion, there is, almost perversely, only _one_ PIE formant that
consistently means "-like", with nouns, and that is -*ye/*yo//-*i. This is,
however, "-like" in the broadest possible sense because the formant is used
to form what we have to regard functionally as a nominal genitive.

If we restrict our focus to -*ró, it has one main function: to intensify. We
could almost always interpret it as "-very" and be right on the mark or very
close to it 90% of the time. Because of this meaning, it tends to be used
with adjectives, nouns used attributively, or verbal participles but not
finite verbs, for which intensity is indicated by a variety of other nuanced
formants.
***

> If you were right, *-ro- would combine mostly with nouns (it makes sense
> to say that something "is similar to" the referent a noun, but hardly to
> an action or state). That, however, does not seem to be the case.

***
Patrick:

From my perspective, this is indubitably correct.

***

> *-nó- (to be precise, the kind of *-nó- that forms verbal adjectives
> with passive meanings) is certainly somehow related to *-tó-, since the
> morphological function of the two is the same and their distribution is
> governed by phonological rather than semantic factors (-nó- is mostly
> preferred after stops).

***
Patrick:

If we restrict our view to -*nó momentarily, we are on far less sure
ground - not so much because it does not have an identifiable morphologic
function but rather, because of additional formants, and subsequent shifts
of stress-accent, we cannot always be sure of its past presence (since
another formant, -*n, with a singularizing function exists) and be sure
that, in these mixed forms, it is the same formant we can identify _when it
is used in isolation_. Examples might be: Greek kínumai, 'am moved'; here, I
would suspect a reconstruction, before stress-accentual reductions and
Ablaut modifications, of **k(h)e[:]-ye-nó-w(V)-; whereas in kinéo:, 'set in
motion', we probably have the singulative -*n: **k(h)e[:]-ye-né-w(V)-.

-*nó seems, to me, to have a collectivizing function without an implication
of prior transitive verbal activity; and I believe, for example, that it is
present nominally in the ending for the 1st person plural: -*me-n, where it
is employed to designate an inclusive group of conversationalists; and this
collective can be temporary.

-*to, on the other hand, seems to imply prior transitive verbal activity,
and imply future persistence of the characteristic without any implication
of collectivity, very much like frequent usage of English -ed: a lipped
pitcher, one provided with a pouring lip,and, unless broken off, remains.

One cannot completely rule out some element of preference according to the
phonological environment but I believe this has to be, at least, originally
secondary.

The difference is subtle, and in some cases, because of semantic shifts we
may never be able to really detect, not recoverable.

***


As PIE *n and *r alternate in some important
> contexts (e.g. stem-finally in the declension of "heteroclitic" neuters
> and between derivationally related paradigms, as in the m. *-wo:n, f.
> *-wer-ih2 type), it's clear that they sometimes go back to the same
> pre-PIE phoneme.

***
Patrick:

Here, I must respectfully disgaree.

I think it is far from "clear" that they go back to the same phoneme.

In my opinion, this stem variation, seen more significantly in differential
case formation, has to do with distribution rather than phonology ('some'
vs. 'all'), mixed in messily with animacy levels (women seem to have enjoyed
anonymity and leisure in the PIE world).

***

It's therefore quite thinkable that the
> adjective-forming *-ró- is also a member of the same family of suffixes;
> its function is so general that one can't see much semantic difference
> between it and *-nó-/*-tó-, except that *-ró- adjectives are less
> dependent on relationship with identifiable verbal stems, so *-ró- is an
> adjectival suffix par excellence. This, however, may be a matter of
> secondary specialisation. Examples of deverbal *-ró- formations (such as
> *pik^-ró- from *peik^-) are easy to provide.

***
Patrick:

Any PIE noun or verb could be put into an attributive syntactic position,
and function as an "adjective" or "participle" without further formants
although this is not the most frequently observed practice.

In the case of *pik-ró, Old Indian piqga, 'reddish', suggests to me
that -*ró is _not_ functional deverbal but still just intensive - after all,
it is an important component of the comparative construction.

***

> Piotr
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>