From: Patrick Ryan
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:53 AM
Subject: Re:Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
> Arnaud, *syu- is already a stem rather than a root.
> The ultimate root is *sAy-, noun, which simply means 'string, cord'.
> The *w (-> *u) is a formant indicative of the successful completion of a
> verbal idea: 'sew'.
> The final 'laryngeal' is most probably an indication of the stative:
> I think the ultimate root is *dz_b
Credo quia est?
Do you have any data to support this form of a reconstruction?
> Egyptian *s_z_b < *ts_dz_b
> and PIE *s_z_w are incremented by *ts-
> Chinese sheng2 "cord" is from *dz_b-ing
You ought to stop indicating Egyptian since no one, not even the ancient
Egyptians, were sure which was which: <z> or <s>.
Pathetic, I know.
> H1 is a continuous present aspect morpheme.
> It may or it may not have been added to *s_z_w- in PIE
> It depends if you believe in Hirt's law hard enough.
> I'm neutral about Miguel's explanation.
> It may or may not be true, why not.
> Uralic words may not be from *s_z_w_H1
> but from the other root : sneH-
> It also makes sense.
Our most ancient language did _not_ have tenses. Time was indicated only
It had only aspects like imperfective, perfective, and punctual, iterative,
durative, habitual (later lexified).
I have no opinion on Hirt's Law. I have noticed that many linguistic 'laws'
are like those for 'immigration' into the US: fine words on paper that do
not really describe anything actually happening.