Re: [tied] -phóros, -phorós, -fer

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> On 2006-04-08 12:04, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Exactly. A root with Jens' *O- as prefix is a compound with *O
> > as first element. The question is whether any first element will
> > cause the same effects as an *O-prefix.
>
> No. Other kinds of agentive compounds (especially the dHarma-bHr.t-
> type) seems to be older, and no such effect is visible in them.
> Nor do we have any o-grades in pure root nouns occurring as second
> members (the nr.-han- type, which also includes Latin compounds
> with -spex, -ceps, etc.). There is no O-infixation in typical
> bahuvrihis -- probably the most widespread type of compound in PIE.

What are the accentuations for _dharma-bhr.t-_ and _nr.-han-_? I
would guess at _dhárma-bhr.t-_ and _nr.-hán-_, but I could be wrong.

Also, with the Latin forms, could it be possible that _-spex_ and _-
ceps_ actually come from *-spoks and *-kops?

> Besides, O-infixation occurs regularly in at least one
> morphological category in which it can't be decompositional -- the
> causative/iterative verbs like *monéje/o-.

I have a rather different explanation for the itero-causative.
Given the vowel quality of the root, it seems that the form was
created after the vowel-reducing trend ceased to be productive.
Thus, the root vowel in **man-áy- (with later addition of
the "thematic vowel") was not reduced. Assuming that the resulting
differences in pitch gave rise to the qualitative ablaut, **man-áy-
would then regularly give *mon-éy-, which is exactly what we see.

- Rob