Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.1985, Qupperneq 101

99
Reflexes of I.-E. *suH2nto-/-ön
Further examples of such derivation would be Skt. srómata- ‘fame’,
corresponding to OHG. hliumunt ‘renown, reputation’ (cf. Oettinger
1982:242) < *kléumn-to- to *kleumn (cf. Av. sraöman- n.)1 and Goth.
sniumundo ‘in haste’ < *snéumn-to-, whose accentuation might be in-
ferred from the parallel OHG. hliumunt, Skt. srómata-. Anotherexam-
ple might be Skt. simánta- ‘parting of the hair’ < *siHmén-to- to
*siHmén- (cf. Skt. simán- m., but also f. and n.). All four examples
show a derivation through an unaccented -to- suffix with the accent
fixed on the root or the suffix preceding the-to-f3'4
In the same manner the heteroclitic //n-stem *seH2ul (Schindler
1975:1, 10; Beekes 1984:5) or *seH2uel (Hamp 1975:102) ‘sun’ could
have produced an adjective in -to-, whose original meaning ‘sunny’
might in Germanic have developed the specific sense ‘sunny side or di-
rection’ -* ‘south’. The original gen. sg. form of this word was probably
*sH2uéns (like *pH2uéns to *péH2ur ‘fire’), cf. Schindler (loc.cit.),
Beekes (loc.cit.). A derivative in -to- from this stem might then be ex-
pected to have the form *sH2uénto- (cf. Skt. simánta-). However, the
1 Toch B klyomo, A klyom adj. ‘noble’ show a mixed -n- and ní-stem flexion (e.g.
obl.sg. B klyomom/klyomont, A klyomdnt, obl.pl. B klyomám, A klyomáhcás, fem.
nom.sg. B klyomha, A klyomim). These Tocharian words are athematic and, therefore,
despite Van Windekens (1976:223), not directly comparable to OHG. hliumunt and
Skt. srómata-. Also, in the Tocharian words, the vocalic grade of the suffix (in the
masc.) indicates an I.-E. ö-vocalism as against the zero grade vocalism of the Germanic
and Indian words. Toch. A klyom, B klyomo < Common Toch. ‘klyorno < *klyumo
(o-umlaut of u), therefore, might rather be understood as deriving from I.-E. *kleumön
(for the change *eu > Common Toch. *‘u, cf. Penney 1976/77:76 sq.), whose flexion got
mixed up with the athematic nr-flexion, probably because of the merger of the I.-E.
nom.sg. forms *-ön and *-önts in Tocharian *-o.
2 Burrow (1965:152—153) thinks that in párvata- there has been a retraction of the
accent “as often elsewhere". However, Hoffmann’s analysis of this word shows that it is
quite parallel in formation to érómata-. Therefore, Burrow’s assumption is not neces-
sary.
J The adjective úaupatói; ‘wonderful, wondrous’ to i)aöpa ’wonder’ appears to be iso-
lated in Greek. For that reason, and because it is attested quite early (though not in
Homer), it is probably archaic, cf. Chantraine (1979:305). Krahe/Meid (1967:173) cite
this word as exemplifying an I.-E. *-mn-ío-formation. If öaopaxói; truely reDresents a
formation parallel to that of Skt írómata- etc., it is conceivable that the accent (for
expected *i)aúpaxo;) has been secondarily transferred to the final syllable, because, in
Greek, adjectives in -to- (i.e. deverbative and denominal adjectives with -to- in diver-