--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> 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...
>
> 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.
First, I saw it in many noun-derivations too, so for sure is not
only deverbative.
Next, you can easy say <<X-ro>> = <<Similar with the result of the
Action-X>> etc...so I cannot see any difficulty related to its
semantism.
Also, it's not intensive as Patrick suggested (I couldn't detect any
additional intensive mark: X-ro is no more intense that X, in
contrary). Also Patrick, Only an intensive mark will not change the
nature of X (that is the case here, as Piotr well observed )
It's strange that we have talked about -ro without examples:
I will try to put some of them:
Example-1: PIE *nebh-; *nebh-o- ; *nbh-ro
-------------------------------------------
*nhb-ro => "similar with *nebh-o ('cloud') 'result' of *nebh-"
a) PIE *nbh-ro
Lat. imber `rain, downpour';
Greek. aphros `foam, saliva'
Skt. abhrá 'fog, cloud'
b) PIE *nebh-os
Skt. nábas `moisture, cloud, mass of clouds, mist'
Grk. néphos `cloud, mass of clouds'
OCS. nebo, nebes-e `heaven'
Conclusions:
Patrick, is more intensive *nbh-ro than *nebh-o? For sure not.
Piotr, is aphros ('foam') "similar-with, like-a" néphos 'cloud'? For
sure it is.
Example 2: *(s)k'h2(e)mb- 'to bend' *(s)k'h2(e)mb-o *(s)k'h2(e)mb-ro
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For a PAlb Example: Alb thembër < PAlb *tsambra /cambra/ 'heel' < (s)
k^h2(e)mb-ro from PIE root *(s)k'h2emb-o- 'to bend' => see Greek
skambos 'bent, crooked' < *sk'h2(e)mb-o
*(s)k'h2(e)mb-ro "heel" = is define as "similar-with a *(s)k'h2emb-o-
similar-with 'a bent thing' (the result of a 'to bend' action)"
So Alb. 'heel' => "a kind of bent thing"
Conclusions:
Piotr, a 'heel' is 'bent' but not any 'bent thing' is 'a heel' =>
so "similar-with" is the only possible relation here.
(and I don't see any 'new intensity' of the 'bent-mark' in
Albanian 'heel', Patrick)
Marius
P.S.:
It's true that in a 'unclarified/very general' roots
like 'quick', 'shining', 'fat' the X-ro result is obsoleted because
finally we have : "similar-with-quick" = "quick" etc. (that is not
false) ...but this is not a sign that the rule didn't function (is
because we don't have enough details about the original meanings)