From: tgpedersen
Message: 46156
Date: 2006-09-20
>Is that harnink- "destroy" with double n-'infix' you want to use
> On 2006-09-20 01:07, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > The pattern in the sg., which obviously is a calque of Sanskrit,
> > can't be original. It must have been *línkW-ti. It think what
> > happened in Ind.-Ir. is that suffixed stems in *Cn-éC, 3sg
> > CnéC-ti (you last three examples), were confused with stems in
> > *CénC-, 3sg *CénC-ti, because of the common pl., 3pl CnC-énti.
> > Therefore those sg. forms can't be used to prove that verbs
> > like *linkW- were athematic.
>
> The pattern is very old and certainly not copied from
> Indo-Iranian. Even Hittite has clear examples of it, as in
> hark- 'collapse' vs. har-ni-k-zi 'destroys',
> and some variants even became productive in various branchesThat's *-nu- (<- "now, new") and *-nw-ax-, you Vandal.
> despite the generally recessive character of nasal infixation.
> Hence the athematic "suffixes" *-neu-, *-nah2-, extracted from
> old infixed presents with final *w, *h2, like *tl.nah2-
> (cf. Lat. tollo:, from infixed *telh2-).