On 2006-01-11 01:26, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> 1. I doubt that the "r" of 'ahar' has something to do with the
> suffix *-ro and the "n" of 'ahan' with the suffix *-no
I didn't say they did, although I could say a distant connection is not
impossible. At the very least, *r/n heteroclisis (also *-wer/n, etc.)
proves that *r and *n can be historically linked.
> 2. you talk about a "grand unification as reflexes of a single type"
> without to can fix in advance 'the final/the latest meanings' of *-
> tó-, *-nó- and *-ró- ?
I don't understand your objection. The "latest meanings" of these
suffixes are well known. Those of *-tó- and *-nó- are participial; that
of *-ró- is akin to participial (I don't accept your forced
characterisation of it as 'similar to...' [sic! 'similar with' is
un-English]). In those cases where *-ró- and *-nó-/*-tó- formations
coexist, some semantic specialisation of *-ró- is detectable, but that's
absolutely normal. Doublets often develop differentiated meanings or
functions -- that's part of the natural economy of human language. For
example, Eng. shade/shadow are variant developments of the same word (OE
sceadu); they have both survived, since each has managed to find a
different semantic niche for itself where it doesn't have to compete
with the other. The same goes for drunk/drunken, staff/stave,
cloth(s)/clothes, pass/pace, etc.
> 3. In this case why not to include also *-lo *-ko *-mo *-dho *-so *-
> bho etc... in this 'grand unification' ?
Such an argument is really below the level of serious discussion. I
include what can be included, and it isn't my ambition to unify
everything. Besides, I don't even claim that _all_ instances of the
suffixes we are discussing belong in the same type. For example, there
is _another_ suffix *-nó-, unifiable with *-mó-! The suffix *-m(e)n-,
which forms deverbal nouns, yields either *-n.n-ó- or *-m.n-ó- in
thematic derivatives. The former variant appears (through
difssimilation) if there is a labial consonant somewhere in the root,
the latter elsewhere. In the o-grade derivatives discussed by Jens
Rasmussen in the context of his infix theory, the two variants are
reduced to *-nó- and *-mó-.
> 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 )
Sometimes it's hard to be more specific. For example, the best known of
all adjectival suffixes, thematising *-o-, doesn't seem to have had a
well-defined _meaning_ even in PIE. Rather than that, it had a
_function_: it forms adjectives from nouns. Or compare English -y, which
can mean 'conspicuous for' (hairy), 'consisting of' (stony), 'suitable
for' (summery), 'inclined towards' (sleepy), 'resembling' (fiery),
'interested in' (horsy)and probably other things as well. What's its
"specific nature"?
Piotr