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!n1van.istar!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!GRAYLADY!dmn1-51.usa1.com!user
From: rdd@usa1.com (Aaron J. Dinkin)
Subject: Re: Tendency of Inflections to Disappear - Why?
Message-ID: <rdd-3007960952360001@dmn1-51.usa1.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:52:36 -0500
References: <4suk93$pob@carrera.intergate.bc.ca> <4sv017$2oa@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au> <Pine.SOL.3.93.960728105546.15585B-100000@rask>
Lines: 26

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

