From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 54318
Date: 2008-02-29
----- Original Message -----
From: "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@>
> wrote:
> Marius
>
Patrick, mind-set & 'heart-set' are nouns in English, isn't it?
In PIE the constructions were quite similar:
*mn.s-dHeh1 'mindset' => Skt. me-dha': (noun)
*k^red-dHeh1- 'heartset' => Skt. s'rad-dha': (noun)
some others
*swe-dHeh1
*mis-dHeh1
*miHes-dHeh1
As a general pattern we have dHeh1 as a full-grade
So I think that initially there there was the Noun 'heartset'-
>'belief' *k^red-dHeh1 that preceded the verbal-formations
(as in *mn.s-dHeh1 'mindset'->'wisdom')
Marius
***
It is difficult to believe you have invested so much energy in defending
this false argument.
You pose two examples:
1) *k^red-dhe:-, which you interpret as a combination of *k^red-, heart',
and *dhe:-, 'set (noun)';
2) *mNs-dhe:-, which you interpret as a combination of *mens-, 'mind', and
*dhe:-, set (verb).
Since *dhe:- is in full-grade in both, the stress-accent, presumably fell on
it: *dhé:-, at least, initially.
There cannot be any doubt that in the second example, *mNs- is in
zero-grade, the pattern we would expect to see in a syllable preceding a
full-grade syllable.
In the first example, *k^red- appears to be in full-grade; and on this
questionable basis, you assign a nominal status for this first *dhe:-.
I say 'appears' because I am not at all sure that *k^red- can be safely
analyzed as 'full-grade'. I favor the view that the full-grade is *k^erd-
showing the same pattern as *mens-, i.e. *CéRC-.
If this is true, your argument has no meaning. Both compounds are
stress-unaccented NOUN + stress-accented VERB.
A far more serious objection is that, contrary to your analysis of
*k^red-dhe:-, *dhe:- is not known as a noun. The simplest nominal forms from
this verb are *dhe:-t-, usually with some further formant.
You cannot assign nominal status to the first *dhe:- just to satisfy the
needs of your theory when there apparently is no evidence of its nominal use
in this simple form.
I do not believe you have a credible argument at all.
Patrick