Sorry about that. Someone came to the door and I accidentally SENT rather
than ARCHIVed the message, which I will now finish (I hope).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with'
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 4:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with'
> > alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> > >
> > > I would be glad to talk on some other examples.
> > >
> > Be my guest. Here are some typical examples of *-ró- with
> > quasi-participial meanings (in most cases indistinguishable from those
> > of *-tó-/*-nó-, though sometimes with some extra adjectival strength):
> > *puH-ró- 'cleansed' (Lat. pu:rus) beside *puH-tó- (Skt. pu:tá-) from
> > *peuH- 'clean, purify'.
I think this root is one that seems to show a small but significant
difference between its -*ró and *-tó forms:
1) the derivatives of *pu?-ró suggest an intensive even ritual manner of
'cleaning'; and the related cluster of meanings around 'free of', again
suggests intensive activity;
2) the derivatives of *pu?-tó, on the other hand, seem to indicate a more
relaxed and less methodical _collection_ of activities - simply 'cleaned';
3) in my opinion, the likeliest basal meaning for *pu?- is as a stative
(-*?) of an iterative (-*w) with an implication that the repetitions have
been sufficient to achieve the degree of completion of the verbal activity
set as a goal, of a primitive verbal *pe/o-, 'blow', obviously not seen
uncombined by the time the PIE-stage had been reached.
If this is correct, 'pure' is rather distinguished ancestor for a
housewife's 'dusting', 'blowing off' the furniture.
> > *bHudH-ró- 'vigilant, waking' (Lith. budrus, OCS bUdrU 'cheerful,
> > fresh', Av. -buDra-) beside *bHudH-tó- (Skt. buddHá-) from *bHeudH-
> > 'observe, be awake'.
This seems to me to be another root in the derivatives of which we can see
discernible difference between -*ró and -*tó: *bhudh-tó- seems to me to
describe repetitions of an activity (-*to) that has, as a result, someone
'being held/staying' (-*dhe/o) on 'both feet/legs' (*bhe-w-), '(a)waken';
i.e. conceptualized as 'getting up' rather than simply 'opening the eyes'
'returning to consciousness'. This awakened entity need not necessarily be
anything but groggily upright and conscious but, by adding -*ró, an
intensive, a greater degree of distance from sleepfulness is suggested:
'vigilance, alertness, fully wakened'. Again, a remarkable semantic
from staggering to one's feet to cosmic enlightenment.
> > There are also numerous substantivisations like the following:
> > *nek^-ro- 'dead (body)' (Gk. nekrós 'corpse') from *nek^- 'perish'.
> > *ksu-ro- 'sharpened (tool)' (Gk. ksurón, Skt. ks.urá- 'razor') from
> > *kseu- 'rub, whet'.
> > *dHegWH-ro- 'burnt (wood)' (Gk. tépHra: 'ashes') from *dHegWH- 'burn'.
Good selection, Piotr.
We can see in *nek^-ro- and *dhegWh-ro- that the suffix is not -ró else we
probably would be observing forms like **Nk^-ró- and *dhogWh-ró-.
With *ksu-ro-, I believe the progression was a little different: **kes-
+ -**ú -> *ksu- = 'whetted' + **-ro, 'part' = '*blade-edge', and pars pro
toto = 'razor'.
The addition of -*n would have brought the stress-accent from **ksú-r-) (or
possibly **kséu-(r-) one syllable to the right: *ksu-r-'Vn.
'Ashes' are then 'the burnt part'; 'corpse', the 'perishable part'.