From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 42886
Date: 2006-01-11
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:58 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with'
<snip>
> ***
> 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.
***
Patrick:
When anyone utilizes a unique process to explain something, he must be aware
that others will consider probability in evaluating the explanation -
particularly when more probable explanations are available as alternative
explanations.
Like your proposal, I think Miguel's is _possible_ but highly improbable.
***
> -*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.
***
Patrick:
I am under the impression that this process is attested but it may be that
the actual realized form before lengthening was -*ió.
***
<snip>
> ***
> 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?
***
Patrick:
Most of us would accept that *re:- is a result of *reH- (I believe this can
be more narrowly specified to *re?-). I believe that *reH- can further be
analyzed as *re/o-, with a meaning 'scratch' + *?e/o, stative'.
***
<snip>
That capability did not disappear with our ancestors, apparently.
***
Patrick:
No smiley?
***
> > -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.
***
Patrick:
I have no idea what you mean here. -*i related forms meaning -like are one
of the world's best distributed formants. It occurs everywhere.
***
<snip>
You are a very creative person, Patrick.
***
Patrick:
Whether intended or not, I will take a positive view of that remark.
***