From: gleyink
Message: 43996
Date: 2006-03-29
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> Q. Were there any prefixes in PIE?
>
> A. The usual answer is negative, but this "No" must be qualified.
> For one thing, the distinction between compounds and prefixations
> (or suffixations, for that matter) is hardly clearcut. A frequently
> used first member of compounds may easily lose its lexical
> independence and never or rarely appear on its own. Eventualy it
> evolves into a true prefix. For example, the negative particle *ne,
> often compounded with PIE adjectives, lost its vowel in composition,
> changing into *n.-, which to all intents and purposes behaves like a
> prefix already in PIE (and a fortiori in the daughter languages).
Another example of the same type is the compositional form *dwi-
of the PIE word "two", which functioned as a prefix in all the
daughter languages (OE twi-, Skr. dvi-, Gr. di-, L. bi-, Lith. dvi-)
Presumably a fairly large collection of such functional prefixes
in PIE can be amassed. Are there any examples of a PIE prefix that
CANNOT be plausibly derived from an independent lexeme? If not,
the "usual negative answer" is, I suppose, a semi-accurate reflection
of this state of affairs.
In PIE inflection, suffixes are clearly predominant over prefixes.
The verbal augment e- is the only inflectional prefix I know
(and probably not pan-PIE). This seems to have remained true
also in the daughter languages, even those that completely
repatterned their inflections (such as Tocharian or Gypsy Rom).
In the Germanic languages the prefix ge- functioned almost
as an inflection for the past participle, but predominantly the
inflectional pattern is one of terminal alteration in all word
classes.
Best - Greg
P.S. Thanks, Piotr, for keeping your promise to start this discussion!