 |
 |
seems the sibilant in the -(ι)σμος ending is related to that in the verbal infix -ιζ(ειν). the /m/ -μ-ος must be some generic IE nominal ending (of which there are all too many), which is why it isn't in the verbs, yielding triplets like baptize/baptist/baptism - since replacing the /m/ in *ism*with /t/ gets you the do-er suffix *ist*. the /a/ in *chasm*, etc., is just the stem vowel - cf. PIE *ǵheh₂- "gape, yawn"; h₂ is the "a-coloring" laryngeal that will turn your /e/ into an /a/. this is the same root, for instance, that shows up sans -s- or -m- in χάος "chaos," where you have only the e-grade root plus masc. o-stem ending: *ǵhéh₂-o-s cheers matt On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:12:46 +0100, Sam Stutter <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > >Greek I think, coming through Latin. I have "spasm" as being the verb > "span" (to pull), derived to "spasmós". > > > >"Phantasm" from "phantázein" (to make visible) from the verb "phaínein" > which produces the noun "phántasma". > > > >So an ancient Greek deverbal nominal suffix then. I can't trace it any > further back in time than that, I'm afraid. > > I again don't have a sure answer, but: > > The _a_ wasn't a necessary part of the formation in Greek: cf. _cataclysm, > aneurysm_, and myriad words in _-ism_. But someone who knows Greek > morphology should speak to stem formations and such here. > > Note also that for most words of this ending the Greek original had _-a_ > (e.g. English has taken _plasma_ alongside _plasm_), but for some it had > _-os_ (e.g. _cosmos_ alongside _microcosm_). > > Anyway, I suspect this suffix will have arisen as a PIE suffix with other > stuff glommed to it, or maybe even as a coalescence of several such > sequences. That's the way that this sort of morphology, in IE at least, > tends to develop: suffixes will occur so often with other suffixes or stem > extensions or bits of morphology that the cluster will be taken as a unit > and generalised to positions it's not historically motivated in. (E.g. the > -n- in English -ness is secondary this way, accreted from stems ending in > -n. I think the vowel itself was an earlier resegmentation and the -ss > part > somehow continues PIE *-ti-, *-tu-.) > > So I don't know where the _s_ will have come from, maybe another suffix, > maybe just a final segment of certain stems. The other, the _m_ element, > I > would imagine was in many cases < PIE *-men-, forming neuter action or > result nominalisations, in its zero-grade: at least, I've heard this is > the > source of the Greek _-ma, -mat-_ nouns, which I think these guys often > were. > > If you were asking about the English development of these PIE suffixes: > Ringe says re Proto-Germanic that > | PIE neuters in *-men- scarcely survived at all but there was a new class > | of masc nouns in *-man-; well atested ex incl _blomo_ flower, > | _malmo_ sand, _skimo_ light (_skinana_ to shine) and _hleumo_ hearing > | (whose base vb prob didn't survive in germanic.) > [thx Sai for transcribing that.] > There are at least some isolated Eng. nouns continuing PIE words with > *-men-, among them _name_ < *h1ne:h3mn= (but that one's been massively > reshaped). > > Alex > > >On 4 Oct 2011, at 15:56, Eldin Raigmore wrote: > > > >> Can anyone tell me the etymology and meaning of the Greek and Graeco- > >> Latin "-asm-" morpheme? > >> As in > >> chasm > >> plasm > >> spasm > >> phantasm > >> > >> What's the latest common ancestor of all the "-asm-" morphemes in modern > >> European languages? > >> > >> What language was it in, when was it there, and what did it mean there? > >> > >> How was it pronounced, originally? (To me it sounds Indo-European, from > a > >> time when some IE-ists think (or thought?) that IE had "sonants" (sp?), > a > third > >> category of sounds besides consonants and vowels. But, heck, I don't > know > >> much.) > >> > >> What about the latest common ancestor of all the "-asm-" morphemes in > >> modern English? > >> > >> Why does English have "plastic" and "spastic" and "fantastic" but not > "chastic"? >