--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> That n/r alternation looks similar to that of the heteroclitic
> neuter nouns and that postulated for the 3rd pl. ending, -n(t)- vs
> -r-. Is the mechanism similar, ie that the -r- was once a
> word-final -n# (and after it changed a thematic vowel was added)?
Yes, I think it's basically the same mechanism. Namely, *-to-, *-no-
and *-ro- arose as different thematisations of the same original
suffix -- participial *-(e)nt-. The source of the *-r- variant may
have been the the neuter form of the participle, *-n(t)# > *-r,
analogically influencing forms with non-final *n; note the similar
*-ro- ~ *-no- variation among the derivatives of heteroclitic neuters,
e.g. *pet-ro-/*pet-no- (Eng. feather vs. Lat. penna). Actually, stems
like *wed-r/n-, *pet-r/n-, etc., may themselves be substantivised old
neuter participles (like **pet-nt 'flying, that which flies' -->
'feather, wing')
Piotr