On 2006-01-13 00:51, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> It's still fishy that -ro- is dropped in the comparative,
> same as it is dropped in compounds.
Another strange thing is the accented full vocalism of the comparative.
One possible solution: the comparative element was originally *-h1es-,
forming a quasi-compound with the vr.ddhied (substantivised?) adjective,
so that from *h2ug-ró- 'big' we'd get something like *h2éugro- + -h1es-
> *h2áugi-(h1)o:s (applying the normal rules of composition),
reanalysed as *h2áug-(i)jo:s (Sk. óji:yas-, Av. aojiiah-). This *h1es-
could be a root noun corresponding to *h1es-ti, in which case the
etymological meaning of the compound would have been something like
'enjoying the state of bigness' (e.g. being big relative to other things).
Piotr