This question is a follow-up to this question Latin passive endings: Why is -mini sticking out. The Latin 2nd person plural passive ending mini has attracted the attention of scholars for centuries, but no satisfying explanation is found so far.

Since the r-mediopassive goes back to Proto-Indogermanic with attestation in other branches than Italic and Latin proper, does the outer perspective shed some light on this ending? (EDIT:) In particular, was the apparent irregularity already present in the proto-language, or is the Latin ending -mini a later replacement of something more regular?

I have looked into Old Irish, but alas, it has already simplified the passive paradigm featuring only one ending for all plural persons. Therefore it is of no help here. Do other Celtic languages or Tocharian give some new insights?

  • 1
    Why indo-germanic? – curiousdannii Sep 12 '17 at 23:11
  • 1
    @curiousdannii: Well, it is Indo-Germanic, isn't it? – Cerberus Sep 13 '17 at 4:53
  • 1
    @Cerberus But why use such an date term? Especially in a question which explicitly concerns Celtic and Tocharian which weren't in mind when Indo-Germanic was the term of choice? – curiousdannii Sep 13 '17 at 4:55
  • 1
    @curiousdannii: Oh, I see. Well, wasn't the term coined as representing the two outermost branches of the family? I don't think it has anything to do with excluding all the branches 'in between' such as Celtic and Italic. It is synonymous with Indo-European. (At first I thought you were suggesting the r could also be found in other families.) – Cerberus Sep 13 '17 at 5:10
  • 1
    I honestly do not understand why you think there might be some connection between -r and -mini. – fdb Sep 13 '17 at 17:23

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.