[tied] Re: PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with'

> >
> > > > > 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;
> > >
> > > (...)
> > >
> > > > Piotr
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Much by coincidence I am these days thinking exactly about

that.

> > > Wrestling against it would be more fair to my current state :).
> > > Anyway, about the present primary desinences of the athematic
> > verbs,
> > > for instance, please, could anyone help me to understand it's
> > origin?
> >
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> There is no advantage to be gained by spelling 'its' 'it's' that I

can

> perceive.
>
> ***

Nor by correcting your opponent's trivial spelling errors.

> > Here's what I think:
> >
> > 1st and 2nd pl. are late. I'll leave them out.
> >
> > The three desinences of the singular are originally deictic
> > particles, corresponding to the Hittite conjunctions 'nu', 'sa'
> > and 'ta' , originally in PIE meaning "this (at me)", "that (at
> > thee)", "yon (at him)", respectively. The fourth one is
> > *-en 'someone/thing' (somewhere). They are appended (or not) to

the

> > verbal root, which is by nature a verbal noun.
>
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> I do not believe there is any connection between these particles

and the

> endings of the first and second persons.

I see.

> In my opinion, 'nu' is a topicalizer, like some usages of

English 'now'.

Aha.

> 'sa' implies causality; somewhat like English 'so'.

Aha.

> 'ta' designates a temporal setting different from the setting of

the current

> dialog, either past or future.

Aha.

> -*n(V) (not -*en) is a collective, used verbally for 'all of us',

inclusive,

> I.e. probably including members of our group not actually party to

the

> current conversation, in contrast with -*m, 'conversant' (1st

singular) or

> 'conversants' (1st plural).
>
> ***
>
>
> > 1st V-nu > V-m or V-o:
> > meaning "this V-ing (at me)"
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> There would be no example of PIE *nu becoming *m if this is not

it;

> consequently, like the -*n-infix, I do not believe it is probable

though, of

> course, anything is possible.

Miguel uses a suffix *-mu which he uses to derive forms in -m, -w-
and -o: (if memory serves), but anything you can get get from *-mu,
you can get from *-nu too, plus it matches an existing morpheme. As
for the uniqueness, that's what you must expect in fused verbal
constructions, cf. the Romance future and conditional.

> -*o: is, I believe, an abbreviated -*ye/o, which originally simply

signified

> a 'male' speaking, with compensatory lengthening for the loss of

*y;

Compensatory lengthening occurs with loss of following vowel, not
preceding consonant.

>same
> formant used later to form -*o-stems (but possibly derived from

yet another

> *ye/o meaning 'object' although less probable, in my opinion

though

> derivation from both is also possible; I doubt this because

homophonous

> endings certainly would not have conveyed much semantically). The

immediate

> cause of the reduction was to eliminate homophony with -*ye/o, an

adjective

> formant ('like').
>

> > 2nd V-sa > V-s
> > meaning "that V-ing (at thee)"
> > 3rd V or
> > V-ta > V-t
> > meaning "yon V-ing (at him)"
> > indefinite V-en > V-r- (3rd pl. or impersonal, middle) or
> > meaning "some V-ing (somewhere)"
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Yes, I agree that -*r signified 'any'. I just do not believe it is

necessary

> or desirable to derive it from an earlier -*n. We should connect

it rather

> with the cluster of words around *re:(i)-, 'number, count'.

How would you imagine that to have happened?

> Around the world, the third person singular is statistically

mostly -*Ø; I

> would suggest that that was probably the situation in earliest PIE.
>
> The later (in my opinion) -*t is the demonstrative *t(h)o,

loosely 'around'

> the speech situation so not part of it.
>
> The really challenging one is 2nd p. -*s. If we regard -*m

as 'conversant',

> one logical candidate is -*s, 'unique singular', but how one

achieves a

> hypothesis with a higher degree of probability, I do not currently

know.

>
> ***

Hm.

> > V-en-ta > V-nt- (3rd pl.)
> > meaning "the V-ing (somewhere)"
> >
> > Because the desinences originate in deictics they are sometimes
> > confused (2nd sg -t, 3rd sg. 2 -s and -m). It wouldn't have

happened

> > if they had originated in pronouns.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> As our ancestors met and mingled with new groups, they were fully

capable of

> confusing anything - and frequently did.
>

That capability did not disappear with our ancestors, apparently.

> > -i is originally a postposition which occurs also in the locative
> > *-i and dative (*-ey) of Nouns. Added to the above forms it

becomes

> > *-mi "in my V-ing"
> > *-si "in thy V-ing"
> > etc.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> -*i is a 'relational', 'like'.

No, that's English.

>Besides simply forming slightly
> differentiated nouns '-like/feminine from masculine) and

adjectives, its

> principal use was to form genitives but not necessarily

possessives. In the

> case of verbs, it makes a static concept dynamic, most easily

considered a

> 'progressive'.
>
> The dative is a derivation from *hei- (*Hey), 'go to', related to -

*I only

> in the sense that it is used as a formant.
>

You are a very creative person, Patrick.


Torsten