Re: Perfect passive participle

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@> wrote:


> > At 9:36:17 PM on Sunday, July 31, 2011, stlatos wrote:


> > > There's no ev. for -H1- or any other H here.


> > To quote Ringe:
> >
> > It is now clear that the PIE mediopassive participle
> > suffix was *-mh1nó-, since that is the only shape that can
> > account both for Gk -μενο- (/-meno-/) and Tocharian B
> > -mane, A -māṃ (Klingenschmitt 1975: 161-3).
> >
> > Whether or not everyone agrees that it's persuasive, there
> > clearly *is* evidence.


> There's much else that has been said about ev. for * -mh1no-, but it all can be accounted by *-menos (nom) -mn(e)- (weak) (as in Latin -mini: , -mnus , etc., and G -(o)ménos , -mna ; showing both w/in a single language so no other interpretation is possible).
>

In addition to all this, there might be a Greek word attested in both forms in Hesychius: dagómenos = weak, dágmnos = pitiable .


This works if a correction of a single letter is made (which commonly must be done to those words wholly or partially known already):

dagómenon : erro:ménon = strong

>>

dagómenon : arro:ménon = weak

This * a:rro:ménon might have had a smudged a- or the word might not been known to the copying scribe, despite being the expl. itself.


Some correction is needed unless G dagómenos and dágmnos somehow managed to have opposite meanings for no reason. This is the simplest, affecting only a single letter; no simpler expl. can exist.


Both words should come from a G dia. in which * dáknomenos -mn- = being ground down / worn down / vexed underwent -kn- > -gn- and dis. of n-n > 0-n .