From: Steve Woodson
Message: 5090
Date: 2000-12-16
> Miguel:What a jerk.
> >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. ñamV- "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 Illic^-Svityc^ is also outdated.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 <némo:> (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 *h1ésh2rgw. That is,
> >*h1sh2ángw- + -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
>