Re: PIE 'inflected' Compounds

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 54605
Date: 2008-03-04

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE 'inflected' Compounds


> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:41:01 -0600, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >I have yet to understand why you prefer *H2 rather than *H1 or *H3
>
> I only said it twice.

***

You have said a lot of things about this subject, much of which you have
revised, and revised, and revised.

***


> >2) The Lithuanian <baidýti> requires *bhoi-; you seek to accomplish that
> >by
> >supposing a perfect form; but in order to make that viable, you must
> >provide
> >for a suffixed *dh(e:(H))- and additionally, a causative -*ye.
>
> No, baidýti is irrelevant. The crucial verbs are Lith.
> bijóti, Slavic bojati, German beben and the Indo-Iranian
> forms (see LIV, which doesn't even mention baidýti)

***

Ah, so the 'perfect' dies a perfect death.

The LIV does not mention you by name either. Are you therefore irrelevant?

***


> >If you want to persuade anyone that *dhe:(H)- can mean 'make, do' in a
> >compound, produce one or two PIE compounds in which this meaning is
> >mandated
> >semantically.
>
> I would think the Baltic causatives in -dýti will do fine.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...

***

Then you had better think again.


Patrick

***