Re: [tied] Re: PIE Word Formation Q&A (1)

On Pon, travanj 3, 2006 4:57 pm, Rob reče:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
>> Q. If derivational suffixes in PIE are basically of the shape
>> *-(e)C- or *-e/o-, what about *-to-, *-no-, *-ro-, *-tlo-, etc.?
>>
>> A. These were originally combinations of *-(C)(e)C- with the
>> thematic vowel *-ó-, yielding *-(C)C-ó-, eventually fused together
>> into a single morpheme, just as the combination of the thematic
>> vowel *-e- with the _following_ collective ending *-h2, came to be
>> reanalysed as unitary *-ah2-.
>
> The nature of these suffixes is such that they often "attract" the
> stress along with the usual quantitative ablaut. What this seems to
> imply is that these suffixes were operative during the period of
> alternating stress that I mentioned in my previous post.
>
> As to the nature of *-ex (Piotr's *-ah2), I think the jury's still out
> on whether the vowel is indeed the "thematic vowel". It seems
> possible, at least, that this suffix is in fact unitary to begin with.

How so? It seems quite clear that it is *-e-h2. Cf. collectives like
*wekWo:s which could be analyzed as *wekWosh2 > *wekWo:s for instance (and
there is secondary Sanskrit vaca:m.si with a final -i which is probably
this *-h2 analogically reintroduced again).
And it does appear in the o/e-changing paradigm. It would not be a small
coincidence that in *Hyug-o-m, *Hyug-e-h2, one would have *Hyug-o-/Hyug-e-
in the singular, but just *Hyug- in the plural/collective with a suffix
*-eh2 which "just accidentally" beginns with an *-e-.

Mate