Re: [tied] Latin suffix -klo- > -culus, origin?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel J. Milton" <dmilt1896@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Latin suffix -klo- > -culus, origin?


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@...>
> > To: "Cybalist" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 5:18 AM
> > Subject: [tied] Latin suffix -klo- > -culus, origin?
> >
> >
> > > What's the origin of -k- in diminutive suffix -culus (<*-klo-)? It
> was
> > > frequent in n-stems and s-stems, and even r-stems:
> > > homo, homunculus
> > > portio, portiuncula
> > > carbo, carbunculus
> > > mas, masculus
> > > *crepus, crepusculus
> > > opus, opusculus
> > > mus, musculus
> > > os, osculus
> > > corpus, corpusculus
> > > frater, fraterculus
> > >
> > > Is it from names like *ox, oculus (*okWs, *oKw-lo-) ?
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Finally, a PIE suffix that is actually unambiguous.
> > *-k, 'child of, little'.
> *****
> Nice to have something unambiguous for a change.
> So what's the evidence for an IE *-k, 'child of, little'? If
> Patrick has it, not something completely irrelevant in Egyptian or
> Sumerian, I apologize in advance for my skepticism.
> Dan Milton

***
Patrick:

Nice of you to apologize in advance but not necessary. I am, you might
suspect, rather used to skepticism.

But I think maybe you are overlooking the obvious.

It is no great leap to connect a recognized 'diminutive' with 'little'
inside PIE.

I will bet you can come up with some PIE roots like *ken- that suggest a
meaning of 'child' for *k- with the recognized formant -*n, 'singularizer'.

Now we could get into whether *ken- can be further analyzed but let us not.

***