Re: [tied] Re: PIE i- and u-stems again

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:03:53 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>On 2007-02-15 23:02, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
>>>> There are no n-stems derived from thematics
>>> What is then the relationship of catus/cato: ?
>>
>> One is thematic, the other is an athematic n-stem. The
>> n-stem is not built on the thematic form: that's impossible.
>>
>> You *can* build thematics on consonant-stems: happened all
>> the time.
>
>Well, so what's the relationship between Gk. gnátHos 'jaw' and gnátHo:n
>'chubby' or híppos and hippó:n 'stable, posting-house'? It's quite clear
>to me that Hoffmann formations in *-h3on- are not restricted to
>Tocharian, and that's one clear source of n-stems derived from thematics.
>
>The origin of the catus/cato: type is debatable, but one distinct
>possibility (Birgit Olsen's idea, I think) is that at least some
>"individualising/definite" nasal stems corresponding to thematic (and
>other) adjectives were originally -n(t)- participles of stative verbs,
>derived in turn from adjectives (*X-h1-on(t)- '[singled out as] being
>X'). The process is a complex one but again it is eventually capable of
>transforming thematics into nasal stems.

I've never really given these matters much thought. I'm
waiting for Birgit's book on Indo-European suffixes.

In any case, as you'll agree, my point was that you cannot
just stick an -n onto the thematic vowel, as Tortsen wants.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...