Re: [tied] IE vowels: The sequel.

Jens:

> So it was just by malevolence you acted as if you did not understand my
> drift?

>:)

Jens:

> Oh, arh, is that the grammatically well-formed way to say that? Much
> obliged.

It was technically grammatically well-formed but hard to comprehend in
this context.

>> Starting with *soditós, it can be clearly seen that it is the genitive
>> of an action noun in *-t that is further based on the causative of 'sit'
>> (*sod-eye-).
>
> What type of word-formation is that? Please show us three credible
> examples demonstrating that such an action noun type *sodit- exists. Where
> do I go find *monit-, *loghit-, *k^lowit- with the meanings "act of
> causing to think", "act of laying down", "act of causing to hear"? Or is
> the causative meaning not contained in the causative stem? Where are they,
> and what do they mean, and how did you get so well acquainted with them?

On *newos:

> And what is that? The "full-grade" is a concomitant effect of vrddhi,
> being a derivative type forming adjectives of belonging marked
> morphologically by addition of a thematic vowel and insertion of an
> -e- in the first syllable. So *neu- has no status outside of *néw-o-.
> The derivational basis of *néw-o- 'new' is the adverb *nu 'now'.

Actually, *nu is the zero-graded bare root *neu- which as I said before
is originally a verb stem meaning 'be new'. The adjective *newos would
be the typical derivative of such a stem. No, *newos does not directly
come from *nu or even vice versa. Rather, *nu is the adverb of verb
*neu- and effectively means 'newly'.

There are other zeroed adverbs like this that are derived from verbs,
such as what is often cited as *r 'therefore, by which' (probably more
like *hWr, from *hWer- 'to move'). The zeroing is the result of MIE
vocalism since these enclitics had *a-vocalism. Thus MIE *nau > *nu.

> But 'new' is not *neu-, it is *newo-.

No, *neu- is a stative verb and *newos is a genitive of this state.

> And by what standard can "of new" be said to be based on a verb as
> you say?

Well, it's rather tempting to use Hittite /newahh-/ as evidence.


On *bHeromhnos and *dHugHmhnos:

> As it stands, you are saying that the verbal nouns in *-men-/-mn-
> with added postposition *H1en-/H1n- 'in', i.e. "in carrying", "in
> utilizing", mean "being carried" and "being utilized" when used in
> the genitive, and a genitive marker positioned *after* the relational
> postposition at that. This is a complete salad of morphology and even
> of functional linguistics. My students would not get away with it.

Salad on your mind again? Are you doing that low-carb Atkin's diet?

The suffix could be *-hon-/*-hn- as in 'someone' or 'something', not
'in'. Thus, I was trying to say *bHeromn-hon- 'that which is carried'.
The genitive of this is 'of that which is carried' or 'like that which
is carried', hence 'being carried'.


= gLeN