Miguel:
>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.
?? You're not merely error-prone. I would have some sympathy if you were. It
is your denial of any of your errors that pushes you to the next level of
outright stupidity. This childish behaviour lowers the quality of the List.
Surely you've heard of the widely attested verbal infix *-n- (which has no
variant **-y-) and so I will elaborate no further - You're a grown man and
can find the resources all by your little lonesome. The noun and adjective
formant in *-u-, besides creating *suxnu- out of the verb *seux-, creates so
many of the most commonly quoted animate and inanimate stems found in IE
that it's absurd for me to have to list them out for you:
*manu- "man"
*deiu- "god" (*dei- "to shine")
*maghu- "young person"
*doru- "tree"
*dexnu- "river" (*dex- "to flow")
*genu- "knee"
*pek^u- "herd" (*pek^- "to comb wool")
*nexu- "boat" (*nex- "to float")
*xeiu- "age"
*teg^u- "thick" (*teg- "to cover")
*?su- "good" (*es- "to be, to exist")
*mreghu- "brief"
You may fight this commonly known fact instead of accepting reality but I
don't have to respond further. Piotr or someone else may have more patience
to handle you.
>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"
Pokorny's reconstructions are laryngeal-less (in other words, ignorant of
the long-ago discovered Hittite), hinting at the antiquity of his viewpoints
in general.
>Kluge/Mitzka: "[sub NEHMEN] Daneben liegen Formen ohne anlautendes
><n>, deren lautl. Verhaeltnis zu den <n->Formen noch ungeklaert ist."
Mitzka who? English translation: "... relation to the n-forms is still
unsettled." Exactly, there's insufficient proof to obsess on this.
>Illic^-Svityc^: PIE *iem-/*nem-, PU *n'omV-, PDrav. �amV- "to hold,
>take".
Illic^-Svityc^ is also outdated. His phonology is chaotic and vague. His
interpretations on IE in particular are no longer compatible with our
current knowledge. Whether he is a product of the less-knowledgeable past or
not, the act of attributing two IE verbs to a single etymology is ridiculous
and an example of the level of his scholarship, credibility and
thoroughness.
>Boissacq's Greek Et. Dict. also lists the Balto-Slavic and Latin >words
>under <n�mo:> (with Osthoff's explanation as *m.mo: < *nmo:).
>
>Need I go on?
Please don't. You've exposed yourself enough.
>What on earth do you mean by "minimal pairs"?
It's a commonly known linguistic term and is the necessary substantiation
for your **n^ => *y/*n equation. I can hardly respect someone who maintains
an absurd defiance against printed word and reality. A "mea culpa" from you
is highly overdue. Perhaps the following will finally spur on this kow-tow.
The blunder I'm referring to is so great it would even make onions cry.
Undeniable proof that you are a confused little man that should listen for
once and stop theorizing for theorizing's sake. This is what you typed in a
recent post:
>Known by you, perhaps. Lat. <sanguis>, <sanguinis> is obviously an
>-en-derivative from the *oblique* stem of *h1�sh2rgw. That is,
>*h1sh2�ngw- + -en-. Cf. a similar case in inguen, inguinis "groin"
>from *neghwr, *nghwen- "kidney, testicle" (Grk. thematized <nephros>,
>OHG <nioro>, n-derivation from the non-oblique stem).
So I went to the local library a couple blocks away and looked up "inguen"
in an etymological dictionary expecting to find a large, gaping error in
your reasoning. Not even five minutes had passed before I found it.
While the word for "kidney, testicle" is indeed *neghWr with the thematic
variant *neghWros (Gr. nephros), the Latin word /inguen/ has nothing to do
with *neghWr! A correct Latin cognate would be /nefro:ne:s/ with /-f-/.
The REAL reconstruction behind /inguen/ is *ngWe:n with *-gW-, not *-ghW-!
The word is related to Greek /ade:n/ "gland" and ON /o"kvinn/ "a swelling".
Although a meaning was not given in the dictionary for *ngWe:n, the
underlying meaning would appear to involve the phallus. At any rate:
different words with different velars and different accentuation completely.
But of course, you will not admit to this blunder either, nor to the fact
that this completely undermines any linkage between /asrk/ and /sanguis/
(which doesn't even carry the same vocalism as *ngWe:n to begin with!).
Talking to you is such a wasted effort, Miguel.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com