From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 28435
Date: 2003-12-13
> 13-12-03 02:27, Glen Gordon wrote:etymological
>
> > 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
> connection within each pair) it's equally possible that the *s-directions' =
> signifies intensity ('go through again and again/in many
> 'spread'). PIE *mer has the specific meaning of 'remember, recall'match
> (hence Lat. memor 'mindful, reminiscent', so that the semantic
> with the Semitic words is looser than your glosses make it seem tobe.
>that the
> > 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
> PIE verbs originally meant "have". But that's 100% imaginary. I seeno
> tangible evidence in favour of such a proposal.************
>
> Piotr