Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!uniserve!news.sol.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!GRAYLADY!dmn1-18.usa1.com!user
From: rdd@usa1.com (Aaron J. Dinkin)
Subject: Re: Tendency of Inflections to Disappear - Why?
Message-ID: <rdd-3007961800020001@dmn1-18.usa1.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 18:00:02 -0500
References: <4suk93$pob@carrera.intergate.bc.ca> <4sv017$2oa@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au> <Pine.SOL.3.93.960728105546.15585B-100000@rask> <rdd-3007960952360001@dmn1-51.usa1.com> <Paul.A.Wagner-3007961250220001@pwagner.jpl.nasa.gov>
Lines: 105

In article <Paul.A.Wagner-3007961250220001@pwagner.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Paul.A.Wagner@Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Paul A. Wagner) wrote:

> In article <rdd-3007960952360001@dmn1-51.usa1.com>, rdd@usa1.com (Aaron J.
> Dinkin) wrote:
> 
> > In article <Pine.SOL.3.93.960728105546.15585B-100000@rask>, "Jens S.
> > Larsen" <jens@cphling.dk> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 22 Jul 1996, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > > > For proto-Indo-European,
> > > > though, we don't have any dictionaries written by native
> > > > speakers, so any analysis of this type has to be
> > > > after-the-fact speculation.  Perhaps all those noun and verb
> > > > endings did start out as separate words.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I gave examples of that above.  It goes the opposite way too,
> > > however, although more rarely; English "able" and Italian "accio"
> > > are cases in point.
> > 
> > "Able"? Are you saying that it comes from the suffix "-(a/i)ble"? I don't
> > think so. For one thing, the word is subject-oriented ("able to
> > understand" = "can understand") and the suffix is object-oriented
> > ("unserstandable" = "can be understood"). For another thing, it doesn't.
> > "Able" comes from Latin "habilis", meaning "skilled", for "habere", "to
> > have"; "-(a/i)ble" is the result of the Latin suffix "-bilis".
> > 
> > -Aaron J. Dinkin
> > Dr. Whom
> 
> Are   y o u   saying that English never forms a word meaning "able to be
> ..." as a result of adding the word "able" to the plain verb? Leaving
> aside your reversal of the sense of the poster (Jens S. Larsen).

No, I am saying that the word "able" and what you call "adding the word
'able' to the plain verb" are two etymologically distinct phenomena. You
are not adding the word "able", you are adding the unrelated (but similar)
suffix "-able". Furthermore, I do not reverse the sense of the poster.
I'll repeat a portion of the quotes above:

> > > > Perhaps all those noun and verb endings did start out as separate
> > > > words.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I gave examples of that above.  It goes the opposite way too,
> > > however, although more rarely; English "able" and Italian "accio"
> > > are cases in point.

Note "It goes the opposite way too" - opposite, that is, to "noun and verb
endings did start out as separate words." Therefore, Jens is in effect
saying that "separate words did start out as noun and verb endings." He
then gives "able" as a separate word that started out as a suffix, and my
commwnt was that that observation was erroneous, since the word "able" did
not originate as a suffix.

> Also leaving aside your assertion that the formed word is "object-oriented"
> (surely a good thing in modern programming languages) instead of "subject
> of a verb in the passive voice-oriented" which fits the facts equally
> well.

Since it "fits the facts equally well," my assertion is as valid as yours
and you have no grounds for leaving it aside.

> Some Latin-derived examples 
> "legible" "edible" "demonstrable"
>  support your point if it is weakened to be a claim that sometimes English
> words are formed from "root + suffix" in the Latin model of root and Latin
> suffix "-bilis".

This is not weakening my point; this is twisting it out of all recognizability. 

> However, "read", "eat", and "show" are not Latin words,
> certainly not Latin roots, yet as synonyms for the above we can put
> "readable" "eatable" "showable"
> which follow perfectly the model "plain verb + able". So in sum we have a
> model which shows how to form English words when we are given even a verb
> newly coined, like "grok".

True yet irrelevant to my post.

> To return to the subject of creating suffixes out of existing words,

The subject was creating words out of existing suffixes.

> rather than just compound words, a more persuasive case is when the suffix
> is altered slightly. To illustrate, the suffix "-wise" when used to add
> the meaning "done along the direction of according to measurement by"
> actually is related to the word "ways". So when we want to say the
> suitcase fits if it placed in the trunk sitting on its edge, we tell the
> taxi driver to "try it edgewise". "edge + ways" = "edgewise". And given a
> newly coined word, "bit"
> we can write assembler manuals confident that readers will find our words
> about "bitwise multiplication" understandable.

True and an astute observation.

> Any resemblance between the preceding opinion and any actual fact, true or
> false, is purely coincidental.

Apparently.

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

