--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> 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-
Piotr, there are many situation in the reconstructed PIE
where 'similar-with X = X' 'full-of X' = 'X' 'originated-from-
X'='X' 'result-of-X'= 'X' etc...I propose to skip them because we
don't know how X was defined initially in such cases, and to talk
only about the more clear cases (because so often in PIE 'everything'
is 'quick' 'shining' 'flow' etc...With no Additional Distinction)
If the *-mo, *-no, *-to, *-ro exists as different suffixes 'For Sure'
that they were used to construct semantically Different Things. So
you cannot say that there is no difference between no/ro etc...based
on some example where 'similar-with gift' = 'gift'
So you need to post a contra-example where my supposed 'similar-with
X' is Not 'X'
I put below the meanings of *-no, *-to, *-ro and *-mo (my opinion)
A. <<X-no>> = "the result of the X-action" (similar with: 'wounded'
is in relation with 'to hit, to strike'
B. <<X-to>> = "full-of/plenty-of of X" (similar-with: like 'full' is
in relation with 'to fill')
C. <<X-mo>> = " generated-by/originated-from/sourced-by X-Object/X
Property" (similar-with: like 'galinaceum' is positioned in relation
with 'galina', 'the whiteness' is positioned in relation with 'white'
etc..)
D. <<X-ro>> = " similar-with/with-the-result of X" (similar-with:
like the 'foam' is in relation with 'the cloud' :) )
Note-1:
a) usually *mo- derivative are not applied on the Actions but on the
Objects and Properties
b) usually *no - derivative are applied exclusively on the Actions
c) usually *-to; *-ro - could be applied on everything
Note-2:
See 'plenitude' for a combination of no + to (the possible
combinations is another topic)
> 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.)
We will never know if initially, the root was for a Verb of for a
Property or a Noun or for all in once ...but even it was for a verb
(and I think that it was) doesn't matter for our discussion...
I didn't derived nbh-ró from a substantive. I used the 'direct
derived' sunbstantives of the root *nebh- so I talked about *nebh-o-
even the root is *nebh- only to can show you that the 'direct
subtantives' from this root means mainly 'cloud, mass of clouds in
the sky' and the derivations in *-ro of the root *nebh- means
mainly 'foam, fog, Romanian "abur"' etc...so the 'similar-with'
relation is evident..and I don't think that I did a trick doing this.
(outside of the topic: Skt. nábhas is derived (see Lubotsky) as *nebh-
o- also Grk. néphos is derived (see Beekes) as *nebh-o- too (but of
course o is not part of the PIE-root *nebh-)
> 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
>
Please see my first answer.
I would be glad to talk on some other examples.
Marius