Page 212 - FUD20

Basic HTML Version

M
ATICSÁK
S
ÁNDOR
212
instances in handbooks and papers – and some of the examples proved
etymologically incorrect.
On the basis of the data taken from the reverse dictionary of Mordvin –
after the exclusion of words of Russian (origin), compounds, and the mono-
syllabic words of the ancient native vocabulary (where
-v
obviously appears
as a continuant to some consonant of the original language) – I only found 47
words in Erzya in which the final
-v
is c o n c e i v a b l y a derivational af-
fix.
In the second part of the paper these words were examined in detail. I pri-
marily relied on etymological dictionaries (UEW, SSA, KESK, Geschichte,
ESE, EtV, ESM), bilingual (ERV, EMSz, ESS) and dialect dictionaries
(MdWb) in the process.
The investigations reveal 22 words in which
-v
can be taken to be a
derivational affix with reasonable certainty. Among them, names of animals
(7) and plants (6) have been found prominent. In names of animals
-v
can
perhaps be interpreted as having had a diminutive function. In view of the
strong influence of analogy, it is not inconceivable that the words
вадов
’go-
shawk’,
гавав
’sparrowhawk’,
ёлдарав
’worm; caterpillar’,
лижарав
’lady-
bird’, and
кашкамав
’wood mallow’,
тутмаков
’anise’,
чудожов
’sow-
thistle’, regarded as of unknown origin, also contain a hidden denominal no-
minalizing affix.
The final section of the paper examines the etymologies of the two af-
fixes. The suffix forming adjectives goes back to the
*p
- and
- of the
original language, wereas the nominalizing suffix probably originates in
*p-
(or perhaps
*k-
).
S
ÁNDOR
M
ATICSÁK