Re: Re[9]: [tied] Mille (thousand)

Brian, many, many things are possible; some are probable, and some may even
be true if we could only know it.

Do you think it more probable or less probable that *s- is a morpheme?

Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:17 PM
Subject: Re[9]: [tied] Mille (thousand)


> At 1:49:08 PM on Monday, March 10, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> So /n-/ in <nickname>, <newt>, <Nash>, etc. must be a
> >> morpheme, eh? And whatever can have possessed the Irish
> >> that they began playing silly buggers with initial
> >> consonants?
>
> > Being Irish myself, I can assure you absolutely that
> > "playing silly buggers" is a direct outcome of too many
> > people drinking way too much for too much of the time.
>
> Somehow I doubt that fossilized sandhi effects are properly
> ascribed to a dhrap o' the whiskey.
>
> > But I would suspect you yourself might be having nip or
> > two if you are thinking these paltry few examples have
> > anything in common with the flood of s-mobile forms: just
> > look how big the s-section is in Pokorny.
>
> That would hardly keep them from sharing a *mechanism*.
> (And while the number of roots with s-mobile is indeed quite
> impressive, there are also plenty of *s- roots without it.)
>
> > You cannot really be serious in doubting *s- was a
> > morpheme meaning something, can you?
>
> I am serious in admitting that as a genuine possibility,
> yes.
>
> Brian
>
>
>