3

I came across a long paper with many cognates of PIE roots, some examples:

  1. *weid- "to see" and *sueid- "to shine" < *weid-es-weid-,
  2. *h₂ǵ- "to drive" and *sh₂ǵ- "to seek" < *h₂ǵ-es-h₂ǵ-,

where *-s- is an interformant in both examples.

Due to my lack of knowledge of judging or proving PIE cognates, I would like to find out whether these cognates are true or not.

  • 1
    Your examples aren't cognates; cognates are words in different languages that descend from the same word in the ancestor language. Are you asking whether the specific roots you list in the question are widely accepted? – TKR Aug 21 '16 at 17:02
  • 3
    If so, *weid- "see" and *h₂eǵ- "drive" are common and uncontroversial, but *sueid- "shine" is marked as doubtful in LIV (the IE verb root dictionary), and *sh₂(e)ǵ- is not listed at all. – TKR Aug 21 '16 at 17:13
  • 1
    Why do you want s to be an "interformant" rather than a prefix? – fdb Aug 22 '16 at 11:35
  • Hi @TKR ! I find *seh₂g- at wiktionary, which has an alternative reconstruction *seh₂ǵ- – archenoo Aug 22 '16 at 11:47
  • 4
    I think the reason you're not getting answers is that your question basically boils down to "Is this paper's argument correct", which is more a prompt for discussion than an easily answered factual question. – TKR Aug 29 '16 at 17:11
1

Basically, extensions are… no one knows what exactly they are or whether they really exist. They look like suffixes, because they are encountered at the final position of what one thinks is the Proto-Indo-European root. The problem with them – I mean the extensions (élargissements, Erweiterungen etc.) – is that it is impossible to define their functions or meanings. Some clever blokes try to speculate that they modify slightly the meaning of the root and therefore may be called determinatives. Benvenist went as far as trying to explain them as ordinary suffixes, but this attempt of his failed, like his root theory, too. There is another major problem to that. Some roots, or what linguists believe to be such, are nowhere detected without extensions, like, for instance, *gen-, allegedly meaning ‘to pinch’ – look it up in IEW. This makes us question the correctness of the reconstruction *gen-.

| improve this answer | |
0

The idea is not whether PIE had preformants and interformants, but that the preformants are in fact suffixes and "extensions".

| improve this answer | |
  • Could you clarify this for readers without a background in this issue? What is an 'extension', and what kind of evidence suggests your analysis? – WavesWashSands Feb 13 '17 at 17:07
  • Basically, extensions are… no one knows what exactly they are or whether they really exist. They look like suffixes, because they are encountered at the final position of what one thinks is the Proto-Indo-European root. The problem with them – I mean the extensions (élargissements, Erweiterungen etc.) – is that it is impossible to define their functions or meanings. Some clever blokes try to speculate that they modify slightly the meaning of the root and therefore may be called determinatives. – Whatnot Jun 4 '17 at 12:03
  • Benvenist went as far as trying to explain them as ordinary suffixes, but this attempt of his failed, like his root theory, too. There is another major problem to that. Some roots, or what linguists believe to be such, are nowhere detected without extensions, like, for instance, *gen-, allegedly meaning ‘to pinch’ – look it up in IEW. This makes us question the correctness of the reconstruction *gen-. – Whatnot Jun 4 '17 at 12:03
-2

argument is not correct if not impossible, such word forming was never in proto-indo-european not even earlier, and proto-indo-european was a suffixional language, didn't have 'preformants" "interformants ", and only had s- mobile as kind of prefix, hence this argument is not tenable. indo-european verbs existed as the main root and some kind of very old determinative postpositional consonantal extensions which may have been in pre-proto-indo-european with a particular meaning.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    The author of the paper in question does not pretend PIE had prefixes. He claims that the prefixes (or preformants) are suffixes. Their position at the beginning of the root is an illusion: the beginning is in reality the end, because the root is factually a reduplication, which lost its first part (preceding the suffix) due to the word stress. The first part of the reduplication remains more or less intact, if stressed, s. examples in academia.edu/30677337/Greek_ γέφῡρα and_Armenian_ կամուրջ “bridge” – Whatnot Jun 4 '17 at 12:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.