Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[tied] Re: HRIM

Expand Messages
  • tgpedersen
    ... least the PIE ... happened to ... in modern ... that ... by ... the ... nouns ... Germanic, ... as ... iskr. ... For those that are willing to consider a
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 1, 2005
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@i...>
      > On 05-03-21 05:17, Gordon Barlow wrote:
      > > English -ish derives from *-iskos.
      > > (Richard)
      > > <-ish> is from PGmc. *-iska-.
      > > (Brian)
      > >
      > > Fair enough, and thank you. But what was the origin - or at
      least the PIE
      > > version - of *iska or *iskos? Second question is, please, what
      happened to
      > > the *wo of PIE, or *wos, as a colours-suffix? Is it represented
      in modern
      > > English?
      > The protoform was *-isko-. The suffix is so complex phonologically
      > it must have developed from the coalescence of shorter morphemes;
      > PGmc. times, however, it was not analysable into smaller parts. As
      > Richard has pointed out, the final *-s in *-isko-s is not part of
      > suffix but a separate morpheme -- the nom.sg. ending of masculine
      > and adjectives (cf. feminine *-iskah2 and neuter *-iskom; other
      > grammatical cases of course had their own endings). In Proto-
      > *-iskos became *-iskaz via regular sound changes; it is reflected
      > Gothic -isks, Old English -isc (= Modern Eng. -ish), Old Norse -

      For those that are willing to consider a Basque substrate in Western
      Basque has an adjective-forming suffix -sko (suffix -s- + adjective-
      forming suffix -ko), eg 'urhe' "gold", 'urhesko' "golden".
      Further it has adverb-forming suffixes -ski and -ska.
      (All according to Löpelmann.)

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.