Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₂yéwHō

The Urdu word is borrowed from Persian. Should it be in the list?

Inflection

@JohnC5 Where did you get that from? Why does the first stem have an o-grade suffix? —CodeCat 23:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: LIN, in its entry for *h₂ei̯-u-, gives either *h₂i̯éu̯-Hō(n) ~ *h₂i̯u-Hén-i ~ *h₂i̯u-Hn- or *h₂i̯éu̯-h₃ō(n) ~ *h₂i̯u-h₃ón-i ~ *h₂i̯u-h₃n- (though in *h₂i̯u-h₃ón-i in the second paradigm, I believe the ó represents the LIN showing the coloration from h₃). On the whole, I trusted the first paradigm more. Sanskrit provides युवा (yúvā, nom.sg.), युवानम् (yúvānam, acc.sg.), यूनः (yū́naḥ, gen.sg.) (see also here) and Young Avestan gives 𐬫𐬎𐬎𐬁𐬥𐬆𐬨 (yuuānəm, acc.sg.). I find LIN's explanation fairly satisfactory. What do you think? —JohnC5 02:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether this is a compound or not. I would imagine that in a compound, the first member would not ablaut. Does Iranian reflect a full grade or is something else going on? Also, Balto-Slavic for some reason has o-grade of the root. —CodeCat 15:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if we could identify the nature of the suffix more precisely.

• Ringe mentions a suffix -Hen- and notes that it is a suffix meaning "having", but doesn't connect it with this particular adjective. Instead he relates it to Latin names like Nāsō (“bignose”). This example, at least, implies that it induced full grade of the root in the nominative.
• Fortson notes the existence of a suffix he calls the "Hoffman suffix", -Hon- ~ -Hn-, and says it has possessive semantics. He gives "young" as a specific example, reconstructing *h₂yu-Hō ~ *h₂yu-Honm̥ ~ *h₂yu-Hn-és (“having life-force”).
• Beekes says: "-h₁en- which indicates a person, is found both as a primary and as a secondary suffix: *h₂iu-h₁en-‚ 'young'".

—CodeCat 19:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Annoyingly, we also have *-h₃onh₂- which seems to be a fourth proposal. The three you've mentioned all seem to be dancing around “person possessing ...” and seem plausibly as if they could be different statements of the the Hoffman suffix. Do we know the origin of this for this suffix? —JohnC5 19:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: Both Ringe and Fortson appear to be referring to “Ein grundsprachliches Possessivsuffix” (1955) by Hoffmann. I cannot find Beekes reference. Do you have the page number? —JohnC5 21:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Beekes 2011, page 181. —CodeCat 21:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it right before you responded. :P Thanks anyhow. He doesn't provide much help, does he? I'd be willing to bet that they are all referring to the Hoffmann suffix. I don't have access to “Ein grundsprachliches Possessivsuffix” nor the German proficiency to just skim it if I had it, but I would love to know what it says about the root grades associated with the suffix. —JohnC5 21:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the age of the work (60 years), I don't think there'd be much information about that. Ablaut classes probably weren't understood then as they are today. Pokorny's dictionary only appeared 2 years later and didn't even use laryngeals! —CodeCat 22:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I guessed as much. What do we think about the ablaut grade in this case. If it is truly a derivational suffix and not a compound, then root could very well be full grade, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence of the full grade root.

On a side note, the LIN also gives Iūnō as a derivative here from *h₂yuh₁n-on- in case we weren't confused enough! —JohnC5 22:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5, Rua, shouldn't this be moved to *h₂yúh₁ō? --Victar (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: Yeah... but this word has a couple other issues as well. Particularly, if this does contain the Hofmann suffix (an individualizing suffix), as many believe, that's often believed to be *h₃, regardless, we need to have *h₂yúh₁ō and *h₂yúh₃ō to account for this discrepancy. —*i̯óh₁nC^[5] 06:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)