Re: I think foreign languages should be outlawed !!!


"Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@xxxxxx> wrote ...
> Colin Fine <news@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >Hmm. Hadn't struck me before. This pronominal -ius is presumably
> >ultimately from IE -osyo or something similar, like the 3rd, 4th and 5th
> >declension g.sg.
>
> Those are from the PIE G.sg. ending *-os/*-es/*-s. OLat.
> still shows some C-stem genitives in -us < *-os, but that
> ending was replaced by *-es > -is (regis). I- and u-stems
> has *-s (*-ei-s > -i:s [usually replaced by -is], *-ous >
> -u:s). The original genitive of the a:-stems also follows
> this model (*-ah2os > -a:s).
>
> The ending *-esyo/*-osyo was of the pronouns and the
> o-stems. The development in Latin was probably *kWosyo >
> *kWoyyo and *esyo > *eyyo. To these forms, which didn;t
> sound "genitive" enough, the nominal genitive *-s was added,
> giving eiius and cuiius. In unstressed position (when Latin
> had initial stress), *-eyyo and *-oyyo were reduced to
> -iyyu, so we have illiius and istiius.
>
> I think it likely that in the o-stems, a form like
> *h1ek^wosyo > *ékWiyyo was further reduced to ekWi: (equi:),
> thus giving the Latin (and Celtic) Gsg. in -i:.

If such a reduction occurred, it must have been independent in Latin and
Celtic, since Faliscan retains -osio as the gen. sg. of o-stems.
Osco-Umbrian has neither -osio nor -i:, but has replaced whatever it
inherited with -eis from the i-stems. Leaving Celtic aside, one of the
problems with the theory of reduction in Latin is that post-tonic *-iyyo
from *-osyo in nouns should have behaved like *-iyyo from *-esyo and *-osyo
in pronouns. If the pronominal forms didn't sound "genitive" enough,
neither would the nominal forms have. Demonstratives and nouns are commonly
juxtaposed, and I find it incredible that such a collocation as
*ghosyo-H1ek^wosyo would become *ghosyos-H1ek^wosyo (huiius equi:), not
*ghosyos-H1ek^wosyos (huiius equiius). But if nominal -osyo was first
replaced across the board by -i: (of obscure origin, perhaps related to a
Sanskrit adverbial form, as Wackernagel suggested), a *ghosyo-H1ek^wi: would
have resulted, and the loss of nominal genitives in -osyo would _then_
explain why pronominal genitives in -osyo or -esyo didn't sound "genitive"
enough, leading to *ghosyos-H1ek^wi: (huiius equi:). The Greeks had no
problem with -oyyo, -oio, -ou not sounding "genitive" enough, because they
didn't replace the suffix with something else.



.

Loading