Re: [tied] Re: IE prefix "*s"

13-12-03 02:27, Glen Gordon wrote:

> There are the following to munch
> on showing the foreign causitive suffix having been fossilized:
>
> IE Semitic
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> *per- "go forth" *?br "go forth"
> *sper- "strew" *s-?br "spread forth"
>
> *ter- "go through" *?tr "go through"
> *ster- "spread" *s-?tr "spread through"
>
> *mer- "think" *?mr "see, know"
> *smer- "think" *s-?mr "make see"

In the first two examples (assuming that there is a real etymological
connection within each pair) it's equally possible that the *s-
signifies intensity ('go through again and again/in many directions' =
'spread'). PIE *mer has the specific meaning of 'remember, recall'
(hence Lat. memor 'mindful, reminiscent', so that the semantic match
with the Semitic words is looser than your glosses make it seem to be.

> Perhaps it should be stated, since it relates to what I'm saying
> above, that the derivation of *?s-u and *wes-u from *es- "be"
> and *wes- "remain" occured at an earlier stage, Mid IE, before
> a semantic shift took place of the Semitic loans.
>
> The meaning of "good" from "be" and "remain" is barely sensical,
> as you verbalize. This is because both verbs had an original
> meaning of "have" in the donor language. Thus *?s-u and
> *wes-u originally meant "having possessions, wealthy,
> prosperous" and hence "good". Now things make sense.

Erh, the adjectives were formed in PIE, so you'd have to assume that the
PIE verbs originally meant "have". But that's 100% imaginary. I see no
tangible evidence in favour of such a proposal.

Piotr