Latin word formation

[Stefan Georg]

>>> How about   de:mens?

>> Doesn't really qualify, 'cause there's no -e/os suffix.

>The original asker asked for any de: + nominal root forms.

As the original asker, I think I have to make my point a bit clearer
(though the point is that I don't really have a point).

Some current etymologies of Lat. /de:bilis/ segment the word as de:- +
be/ol + e/os, in order to, as you rightly observe, justify the
Latin-Slavic-Sanskrit etymology (based on the root *be/ol- "strength". I
was wondering, whether this *exact* pattern has any good parallels in
Latin, Celtic (where de:- is prominent) or probably elsewhere. de:mens
shows only parts of the pattern, whereas the de:bilis <
*de:habilis-etymology has de:- + hab + Lat. ilis (< *-ele/os), and it is at
the moment unclear to me whether this (old) etymology is the better
alternative.

For the time being I'm content with the fact that the segmentation
de:-bil-is may help to find a Sanskrit-Slavic etymology of this word, but
that it leaves us with a slightly odd (minor, marginal, or maybe even
unheard of) derivational pattern for Latin. That was my question, and my
thanks for your input.



Stefan

Dr. Stefan Georg
Heerstraße 7
D-53111 Bonn
FRG
Tel./Fax +49-228-691332