[tied] Re: HRIM
- --- In email@example.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@i...>
> On 05-03-21 05:17, Gordon Barlow wrote:least the PIE
> > English -ish derives from *-iskos.
> > (Richard)
> > <-ish> is from PGmc. *-iska-.
> > (Brian)
> > Fair enough, and thank you. But what was the origin - or at
> > version - of *iska or *iskos? Second question is, please, whathappened to
> > the *wo of PIE, or *wos, as a colours-suffix? Is it representedin modern
> > English?that
> The protoform was *-isko-. The suffix is so complex phonologically
> it must have developed from the coalescence of shorter morphemes;by
> PGmc. times, however, it was not analysable into smaller parts. Asthe
> Richard has pointed out, the final *-s in *-isko-s is not part of
> suffix but a separate morpheme -- the nom.sg. ending of masculinenouns
> and adjectives (cf. feminine *-iskah2 and neuter *-iskom; otherGermanic,
> grammatical cases of course had their own endings). In Proto-
> *-iskos became *-iskaz via regular sound changes; it is reflectedas
> Gothic -isks, Old English -isc (= Modern Eng. -ish), Old Norse -iskr.
>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.)