Re: [tied] PIE *h3 and PPIE **n

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:15:53 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>>Apparently, you don't know much about the "competent literature". The
>>PIE forms are *su(:)nus [with short /u/ in Gmc. *sunus] and >*su(:)ius.
>>[the /u/ is short in Grk. huiús, and was replaced by /o/ >in Tocharian].
>
>If you can succinctly show me how *su:ius is to be divided up in a
>grammatically satisfying way, I may begin to listen to your plea. We all
>know that *sux- (*su:-) is a verb stem of course. What is **-iu- supposed to
>be?

And what is *-nu- supposed to be? We have suH-n-u-s and suH-y-u-s. I
propose to derive them both from *suH-n^-u-s.

>As for *em-, *nem- and *yem- being phonetically connectable to **n^ and that
>this is another "mainstream" view... it is clear that you are not brave
>enough to list the authors of these works for us, nor are you able to list
>the minimal pairs that are necessary to give any sort of credence to your
>views. Therefore, there is no reason to consider any of it.

You're twisting my words. The connection between the three roots is
always remarked upon, the explanations vary:

Pokorny: "neben idg. em- stehen die Reimwurzeln jem- und nem-, wohl
urspruenglich verschieden und nur sekundaer gelegentlich angeglichen"

Kluge/Mitzka: "[sub NEHMEN] Daneben liegen Formen ohne anlautendes
<n>, deren lautl. Verhaeltnis zu den <n->Formen noch ungeklaert ist."

Illic^-Svityc^: PIE *iem-/*nem-, PU *n'omV-, PDrav. ñamV- "to hold,
take".

Boissacq's Greek Et. Dict. also lists the Balto-Slavic and Latin words
under <némo:> (with Osthoff's explanation as *m.mo: < *nmo:).

Need I go on?

What on earth do you mean by "minimal pairs"?

>And, within the bounds of the typically resistant character that is Miguel,
>it is most interesting to note that he has, as of yet, not shown clear
>examples of "tri-splitting" in action to avoid the cutting mockery of my
>defiant tone.

I have. Re-read my remarks on e.g. Caland's Law.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...