etymology

[Paul B. Gallagher]

R. M. Cleminson wrote:

> By whom, I wonder, and on what grounds?  It is generally thought to
> be Indo-European, and cognate with Latin -inus, Greek -ῖνος, etc.
>
> It is the regular suffix for forming adjectives from nouns in -a, and
> also, in the earlier period, from nouns in -ĭ (e.g. гостинъ < гость);
> nevertheless, there is no reason to believe that the name Путин is of
> such antiquity that it could be derived from путь (and in any case,
> at that period the suffix was attached to nouns denoting persons).  I
> agree that it must be derived from the proper name Путя.

Let's not forget that each generation, as part of its learning process, 
creates "rules" based on classes of similar forms. So for example, an 
English-learning child, on encountering "sing/sang," "drink/drank," 
"stink/stank," etc. infers that monosyllabic verbs with /-ɪŋ-/ form the 
simple past with /-æŋ-/. Then they have to learn that not all verbs 
meeting this spec are members of the class: "ping/pinged," 
"think/thought," etc. Hence the substandard "bring/brang." I myself have 
to resist the temptation to form the past of "dive" as "dove" like 
"drove," because that would imply the participle "diven." ;-)

So in this context, Russians who knew that many surnames end in -ин may 
have invented new ones with no historical basis. Only a thorough 
examination of the historical record can tell us when the name first 
appeared and how it was formed.

-- 
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
pbg translations, inc.
"Russian Translations That Read Like Originals"
http://pbg-translations.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                        http://seelangs.wix.com/seelangs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------