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

On 2006-04-03 16:57, Rob wrote:

> I suppose that this development is possible, given the relative
> similarity between /r/ and /n/. However, I am unsure about both *-tó-
> and *-nó- going back to the NT-participle. What would be the
> conditioning factors here?

Phonological. Roughly, *-n- after oral stops and non-vocalised
laryngeals, *-t- elsewhere (Olsen), but I think this condition should be
somehow revised, taking into account factors such as the place of
articulation (my feeling is that with dentals the variant -t[s]t- was
always preferred). The evidence is difficult to interpret, since
analogy, working both ways, often introduced secondary variants.

>> (2) When a thematic adjective is derived from an already thematic
>> base, e.g. RV as'vya- 'pertaining to horses' from <as'va-> horse.
>
> This does not seem to follow, given e.g. the "thematic" genitive
> plural *-o:m < *-o-om. In other words, *o + *o > *o:, not *io or *yo.

This is inflection, not derivation, and may have worked according to its
own principles. Cf. English, where e.g. /-Ng/ is obligatorily simplified
to /N/ before inflectional endings (and word-finally) but not before
derivational suffixes (prolo/N/-i/N/ vs. prolo/Ng/-ation). I'm not even
absolutely sure that the above analysis of the gen.pl. ending is
correct. It assumes that the actual ending was *-om, but I can't see any
good evidence of contrast between thematic and athematic gen.pl. endings
in any of the branches.

> This may seem controversial, but I would like to put forth the idea
> that the adjectival (diminutive) suffix *-iko and the feminine suffix
> *-ix (= *-ih2) are, in origin, one and the same. The former suffix,
> then, would comprise a base form *-ik with the (animate) genitive
> ending *-ós, while the latter would continue the base form in
> word-final position, where the *-k was lenited to *-x (= *-h2).

An interesting thought.

Piort