From: Patrick Ryan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 22:22:47 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
> >Brian, you are right on every one of your points.
> >The circumstances are such that proof of my proposition is very
> >But there are a few additional facts that support my supposition.
> >Let us look at <praetor>, 'he who habitually goes before'.
> >We never find (I think) examples of habitual personal agent nouns with
> >reflexes of PIE *dhro-.
> Looks like you are confusing the suffix *-tor (C-stem) with
> the suffix *-tró- (o-stem).
> What Olsen says is that there is no instrumental suffix
> *-dhro-, just like there are no agent nouns in
> *-dhor-/*-dhér-. What has been mistaken for *-dhró- is in
> fact *-thró-, from *-h1/2-tró-.
> >Then there is the internal PIE evidence that I think Arnaud brought up
> >none of you addressed.
> >Reflexes of PIE -*tu and -*ti do not have -*dhu
> >and -*dhi variants in Latin which we should expect under similar
> >at juncture that supposedly modify *-tr/lo into -*dhr/lo.
> It was Marius (quoting from Google books), and it was
I do not believe I am confusing anything here; for me, -*tor and -*tró are
the same suffix in two different environments.
I think I understood what Olsen says.
As I have stated before, I believe the suffix -*dh conveys a 'tool' for some
purpose, and can be generalized as an occupational or instrumental suffix;
also, with further suffixed -*r, which I think is tied to the meaning 'cause
to come, bring about'.
It has a different origin from -*t, which here conveys a future hence
habitual or customary meaning; in its simplest form, I would connect it with
the PIE -to participle and Egyptian <sDm.tj.fj> and <-tj>.
But, in the present application, -*t also takes -*r, with the same meaning
as above, to form an habitual or customary also agent suffix.
I think Olsen is wrong; and I find her proposal that *Ht -> *tH then *th
implausible; even further from reality is her idea that *th could be
confused or conflated with *dh.
I do not look to Marius for serious argument.
If you agree with his, would you recap it?