Re: [tied] value of "u"

08-07-03 07:07, alex wrote:

> If one take a look at the Latin verb "quatio:" one will observe there ,
> the PIE root given there is *skuet- with an "e" which is turned up with
> the head down and an "u" which is marked wich an short sign under it.

...

> As for Rom. word "scutura" the official explanation is a phantesist one.
> There has been postulated an Latin *excutulare , useless invention since
> the PIE root is in fact already with "s"
>
> PIE *skuet- > Rom. "scutura" which word is simply the PIE root + suff.
> "-ura".
>
> I should like to know the phonetical values of this "u" and "e" for
> corelating its development in Rom.

The mark under <u> means that it is non-syllabic. In normal phonetic
notation the equivalent symbol is [w]. <e> upside-down is schwa -- here
Pokorny's reconstruction is different from that used in modern IE
studies: he recognised no "laryngeal" consonants. Rewrite it as *skw&t-
(a rather fishy reconstruction from the modern point of view).

You had better leave etymology to people who know the ABC of the trade.
Adding "suffixes" at will without explaining what they are and what they
are supposed to mean (or at least illustrating their use with other
roots) ought to be treated as bad manners on a linguistic list.

Piotr