--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2006-01-07 15:06, tgpedersen wrote:
<snip>
> Marius
>
> P.S.: I need to agree that any X-<<suffix> (and not only -ro, -
to, -
> no) means 'pertaining or belonging to <<X>>, connected with
<<X>>':
> but this is a simple thautology like a=a.... (it remains to can
> find 'the specific nature' of this connection )
Patrick:
Marius, perhaps this explanation will be of interest in this
question of yours.
The formant *ye/o is derived from a word that, at its simplest,
means 'speak' verbally and 'word' nominally.
Therefore, the compound X-*ye/o means 'X-word'. This suggests that
the new item is not X but that the idea of X will identify it also.
This can mean 'located in a place inhabited or controlled by X', and
be a kind of locative or genitive.
One application is to interpret this relationship as -like.
Something which is 'snake-like', i.e. 'long, narrow, tubular, no
visible appendages, etc.' would fairly describe a 'worm'.
It is precisely because one does not want to elaborate the entire
constellation of _specific_ similarities or selection of
characteristics that such an expression would be used. SNAKE + *y.
SNAKE+part would also be generalized but not so broadly. If we think
of a snake as having a forked tongue, any animal which has a forked
tongue or even appears to have one, might be termed SNAKE + *ro.
We might want to called the snake itself the 'forked tongue one' if
we had some idea of what was associated with that physical form: the
Native Americans said whites spoke with a 'forked tongue', meaning
deceptively and and mendaciously and that was certainly true in
all of our dealings with Native Americans. We never wrote a treaty
we did not break or interpret 180 degrees from its original plain
meaning if there was any advantage to be gained, with the ready
complicity of our Supreme Court.
If, on the other hand, we singled out a characteristic of the snake
like silent slithering, and wished to describe a silent,
undetectable approach superior to that of a snake, we might want to
designate such an approach, by way of hyperbole, as SNAKE-very, i.e.
SNAKE + 'ró = 'sneaky but not even the faintest rustle in the grass.
We might want to single out an individual human as a 'snake', i.e.
treacherous; this could be an occasion for the individualizer 'one',
the 'snake among us' = SNAKE + *n.
On the other hand, we might want to single out the snake's venom as
an analog of all things painful or poisonous: this might be SNAKE
+ 'nó, almost 'brought by a snake'.
If we wanted to suggest that an entity had acquired and was expected
to keep for the future some characteristic of a snake, we might say
in English 'snaked', that could be SNAKE + 'tó.
If we wanted to characterize some characteristic of a group of
snakes, such as their interlacing at certain times, we might say
SNAKE + *t for the group or SNAKE + *ta:.
It is all pretty straightforward but, of course, subtle nuances are
not often very well maintained over time.
***