--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2006-09-24 22:23, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Erh, is this a complicated way of saying that the Caland suffixes
> > are a closed club and if a root has adjective forms in *-u- and
> > *-ro- and insist on having a verb form in *-nu- too, then it's not
> > a Caland root?
>
> There are many adjectives in *-ró-, *-nó-, *-mó-, etc., but it so
> happens that only those in *-ú- regularly form verbs in
> *-néu-/*-nu-.
> Coincidence? An adjective like *h1rudH-ró-, though a member of the
> Caland club, lacks such a factitive.
Something must be wrong with my head. Does that mean that a Caland
root has adjectives in either *-ró-, *-nó-, *-mó-, etc, or *-u, but
never both?
> Instead, a nasal present was probably formed from the root aorist
> *h1reudH- 'taint/turn red': *h1ru-né-dH-ti/*h1ru-n-dH-énti (with
> traces left in Celtic, in some branches replaced by the "simple
> thematic" stem (<-- aor. subj.) *h1réudH-e/o-, cf. Gk. ereútHo:,
> Gmc. *reuð-a/i-).
Interesting that *h1rudh- (and that's *h1réudh-ti, *h1rundh-énti in
the Torsten system) is so close to the substrate *H-r-b- "red-brown,
strange (cf early American use of 'Dutch')" word. Perhaps Caland was a
foreign club?
I have a half-baked solution, so perhaps I shouldn't serve it yet.
My clever theory was that the n-infix had to do with a rule
in which stress affected the voiced unaspirated, like this:
*-V´b-, *-VmbV´-
*-V´d-, *-VndV´-
*-V´g-, *-VngV´-
*-V´gW-, *-VngWV´-
but then I remembered that someone (Gamkrelidze-Ivanov?) had
tried to explain the lack of PIE /b/ by pointing to the excessive
number of /w/s. So perhaps it was:
*-V´w-, *-VmwV´-
*-V´d-, *-VndV´-
*-V´g-, *-VngV´-
*-V´gW-, *-VngWV´-
instead. And now we have an alternating w/mw phoneme (and
u/nu?) which might come in handy with the 1st pl., the
pres.part.act., the Hitt. verbal noun and various other
matters. But obviously, using it on tepu, tepnuzzi is
premature (because that other labial gets in the way).
Torsten