--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2009-06-13 15:28, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 1. Do you Know that denominatives in Latin are constructed (also) via
> > -a:re suffix? Do you need examples?
> >
> > 3. Do we have here tonus and sonus as the basic nouns, too?
> >
> > So the Final Question for You:
> >
> > Why not DENOMINATIVES?
>
> Because denominatives in <-a:re> follow the first-conjugation pattern,
> not a mixed one.
So what? Why tona:re cannot be denominative?
Please be more specific.
> And there is no nominal source for <domo:>, which
> belongs to the word-family of *demh2- 'tame, subdue', not *demh2-
> 'build'.
As I said tona:re , sona:re can arrived in the -a:re class for one reason (like to be denominative) and domo: for another reason etc....
As for domo:
1. Watkins proposed a present-formation either thematic or athematic.Even this doesn't mean that he's right.
2. -h2-eye- is another possibility
3. a late reshaping to the a:re class is another one etc...
Also, I need to ask you:
- why ama:re (*h2emh-), ara:re (*h2erh3-), cala:re (*klh1-) are in the -a:re class?
(when they don't have even an -h2- inside)???
THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE:
- BECAUSE THEY WERE RESHAPED TO -a:re:
ara:re 'for sure' I would say..
cala:re 'for sure' too (we have Umbrian karetu)
etc...
So we have many RESHAPINGS HERE....
The fact that a verb belongs to the -a:re class doesn't make it a causative-iterative formation
Similarly, a -h2- verb can belong to another class than -a:re
Marius