--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> I would have preferred Lat. *-i:tus and Vedic *-i:ta-, but
> in neither language is the *-i-tó- suffix exclusively bound
> to the causative-iteratives. In Latin (where any short
> vowel in this position would yield -i-), we find -itus in
> a:-stems (domitus), e:-stems ("essive-fientives") (tacitus),
> etc.
There are e:-stems originally ending in *-C-[h1]-jé- (with original
aorists in *-éh1-); here the expected verbal adjective, if inherited,
would be *-C-&1-tó- > Lat. -C-itus, with the zero grade of the *-eh1-
suffix. The majority derived from thematic bases have presents in
*-e-h1-je- and verbal adjectives in *-e-h1-tó-, with Olsen-style
preaspiration producing *-e-tHó- > Lat. -idus. I don't see any serious
problems here.
As for <domo:>, it's one of a small group of Latin verbs with only
_partially_ generalised first-conjugation forms, like Lat. tonat,
whose prototype is *(s)tonh2éje- (or even *(s)tonh2áje- with
h2-colouring), cf. Ved. stanáyati. The regularly formed verbal
adjective is therefore *(s)tonh2i-tó- (Lat. tonitus), and likewise for
*domh2i-tó- > domitus (Ved. damáyati, damitá-). Note that in these
cases the laryngeal isn't deleted despite the R-fix (and so blocks
Brugmann's Law in the Indic forms), since it causes no syllabification
problems in the original derivational base of the causative, the
verbal noun *domh2o-. Nothing unexpected here. Original *-ah2-je-
presents, of course, have participles in -a:tus.
> In Vedic, the -i- is often inserted, sometimes with
> etymological justification (set.-roots, where the -i- is a
> vocalized laryngeal), sometimes also without (after
> consonant clusters). The remarkable thing about the Vedic
> forms is that the causative morpheme -ay- is deleted (and
> replaced by -itá-),
Here of course I disagree. IMHO the /i/ of -itá- is precisely what is
(and should be) left of the "causative morpheme" in this position.
Piotr