1) Human population after Noah, racial and demographic pseudoproblems for creationism, 2) Have "Humans Interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans"?, 3) Sorry, Duursma, but all languages have the cases of Proto-Indoeuropean, there is no primitive language ... (which is on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica blog), 4) After Flood and Babel : Was There a PIE Unity?, 5) Chiara Bozzone on Caland System - Short Review, Trubetskoyan Comment (which is again on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica blog)
I am giving only her conclusions, now:
[9.1] The Caland system represents an older class of Pre-PIE Adjectives that were verbal in nature. In Pre-PIE, the system was presumably limited to finite forms of a root aorist used in predicative function, and root aorist participles used in attributive function. Next to this, Pre-PIE had an INSTRUMENTAL PREDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION that could be used with nouns expressing property concepts.
[9.2] When IE shifted to having noun-like adjectives (probably as a result of developing into a mainly DEPENDENT-MARKING language), the Caland roots had to be adapted to the new system via derivation. They then received suffixes which clearly shaped them into nouns, adjectives, and verbs; these are the Caland suffixes. The old root aorists (once the basis of the system) were gradually eliminated, and only few direct and indirect traces of them remain in the daughter languages.
[9.3] As the system was shifting, PIE came to have a SWITCH adjective strategy (like Biblical Hebrew and Oromo). In this strategy, Caland roots could inflect both verbally and nominally; in particular, adjectival predication was done nominally in the present (using the instrumental of a new Caland root noun), and verbally in the aorist (using the old root aorist). It is in this system that the instrumental *-eh1 was reanalyzed as an imperfective suffix, and was provided with personal endings, yielding the stative present of the Lat. calere type. In some daughter languages, common imperfective suffixes (plain thematic *-o/e-, *-ske/o-, *-ye/o-, nasal affixes etc.) were used to the same end.
Well, on the assumption of development from an ancestral language - proto- or even (as in this case) pre-indo-european, her conclusions are pretty well documented.
On the other hand, the material itself does somewhat suggest "esperantisation" or "russenorskification" on an advanced level (not by bunglers who reduce morphology to a bare minimum) - diverse real parent languages contributing diverse strategies of expression, and in case of giving the adjective to the "common stock" of "international" vocabulary, obviously tended to, but did not need to, each, primarily retain the one in vogue with its own pre-indo-europeanised stage.
Chiara's explanation is at its most basic:
[4.2] In this layer of Pre-PIE, to say "the cat is/becomes red", one would say "the cat reds". We shall discuss the inflection of such forms below; for now, we can just assume that these were root formations. Such CALAND ROOT VERBS would then constitute the bedrock of Caland formations, and provide the base on which the rest of the system is eventually derived.
[4.3] Later, when IE developed a noun-like adjective class (the productive one we observe in all IE languages), Caland formations had to be reshaped to fit within the new system. In this process, IE derived both nominal and verbal formations to the Caland roots. We would then have:
- New verbal formations: *h1rudh-eh1-ye/o-, *h1rewdh-e/o-, etc.
- New nominal formations: *h1rewdh-i-/-u-/-ro- etc.
- One language would contribute a verb to the stock of adjectives,
- One an adjective in -ro-,
- One an adjective in -i-,
- One an adjective in -u-
- Languages with verb-like adjectives would add noun like adjectives in -ro- etc from other languages,
- Languages with noun-like adjectives would add verb like adjectives from other languages,
- Then : Each language would have an enlarged stock of adjectival expressions, and would even tend (often in concord with each other) to enlarge each ajective into all or many of the possible forms.
- Hence the system of secondary derivatives noted in 4.4 is "seemingly lacking a synchronic base".
Now, do look up her very good essay:
Academia : The Origin of the Caland System and the Typology of Adjectives
by Chiara Bozzone, UCLA
at occasion of East Coast Indo-European Conference XXXIII, June 6, 2014
In it, she gives a lot of detail and documentation, and I think the documented forms fit my explanation as well as they do hers.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Ember Wednesday of Advent
Wednesday after Gaudete Sunday