Re[2]: [tied] RE: a:-stems

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 58370
Date: 2008-05-05

At 7:06:46 PM on Sunday, May 4, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>> At 8:26:11 PM on Saturday, May 3, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:


>>> My sources list the instrumental singular of *a:-stems as
>>> *Ø.

>> You must not have Beekes. Talking about the h2-stems (i.e.,
>> a:-stems), he gives the inst. sing. as *-h2eh1 (for
>> *-h2-eh1), but adds that the Slav. and Skt. forms are
>> different, having been taken over from the pronouns.


> The email you link was NOT what I was responding to at
> all!!!!

I know. It was, however, the one in which Miguel explained
in greatest detail the derivation about which you were
asking. It is also the one to which he was referring in
this exchange with you, which led a couple of posts later to
the bit that you just quoted and re-quoted:

>If you think my theory cannot explain something, give me
>a concrete example, and let us see.

I already gave a concrete example: the ah2-stem



> I have Beekes, Lehmann, Brugmann, and will shortly have
> Szemerényi.

Then in fact you *do* have a source that gives the a:-stem
instr. sing. as something other than *Ø, since, as I pointed
out in my previous post, Beekes does so.


> Slavic *a:-stems, etc.? Now you are reading what is not
> there, and not reading what is there.

I am doing neither. I simply took the trouble to look up
the post from which you quoted and trace the thread back to
find out what Miguel had previously said. Had you done so,
or had you restrained your tendency to substitute venom for
substance, you might not have made such a fool of yourself
(albeit mostly in the bits that I have kindly deleted).