Re: [tied] PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with'

alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> 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.

With such loose semantics, just about any adjective can be interpreted
in the same way, including those in *-no- and *-to-, e.g. *pl.h1-nó-
'full' (= similar to the result of filling) or *dH&1-tó- 'placed' (=
similar to the result of putting down).

> 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.

But *nebH- was originally a verb root, even if its nominal derivatives
are attested more widely than the underlying verb. Cf. Gk.(sun-)nepHo:
'cloud over' (perf. -nenopHa), or the Iranian participle *nap-ta-
'moist, damp'. *n.bH-ró- is not a derivative of the widespread s-stem
verbal noun *nébH-es- (there is no *!*nebh-o-, as in *nebH-os the *s is
part of the stem-forming suffix!) but a substantivised verbal adjective
derived directly from the root *nebH-. (I skip your other example, which
is too obscure for profitable discussion.)

There is no shortage of examples showing that the semantics of *-ro- is
not radically different from that of *-to-/*-no-, cf. *doh3-no-m ~
*doh3-ro-m, both substantivised with the meaning 'gift'.

Piotr