Re: PS Emphatics

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
> That would be English betrothe
> we also have archaic English troth
> How about German treu?
> =======
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > Further
> > Dutch trouwen "marry", MLG tru:welovede "engagement
> > (to be married)",
> > ON trúlofa "promise solemnly; engage (to be
> > married)" with s mobile?
> > Torsten
> =========
> What is "s mobile" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_s-mobile

>
> As far as I remember,
> I am the only one that asserts
> PIE had prefixes.

Apparently not, which you would have known if you had spent a little
more time studying existing literature on IE historical linguistics.

> Please, watch your steps,

Are you threatening me, your Excellency?

> PIE had no prefixes
> no nothing mobile at the initial.

Then why are you asserting that it did? You are a very strange man.

> Please remind orthodoxy.

What??

> Avoid making statements that trespass the limits.

Asserting that PIE had no s mobile is against linguistic orthodoxy. Is
that what you mean? However asserting PIE both had and hadn't prefixes
is trespassing the limits of the orthodoxy of logic, ie. the 'tertium
non datur' rule.

Somehow this question came to me: theoretically, could a pope issue a
bull, if he hadn't read the Bible?


Torsten