Re: [tied] The recent terror attacks prompting a question

----- Original Message -----

From: alex

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 1:15 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] The recent terror attacks prompting a question

Patrick Ryan wrote:
>   Patrick:
>
>   As Jens pointed out recently, you cannot project the phonological
> processes of any IE-derived language back into PIE.


now I guess I got your idea. there has been a root *der which already in
PIE became *sder became *ster became *ter. Parallel, the old root *der
was kept. Somewhere at a point we got in PIE *der and *ter from which
the IE languages derived their own words. If so, for IE languages we
have still to speak about two diferent roots, regardless if the second
one is via s-mobile a reflex of the first one, isn't it?

Alex

***

Patrick:

 

Well, yes and no.

 

We say we do not know the meaning that *s-mobile imparts to roots. So, there is usually no discernible difference between Root and *s+Root semantically.

 

My own preference is to regard them *der- and *ter- as allo-root forms however I see no problem is regarding them as separate roots if the relationship between them is understood.

 

Incidentally, I think *s-mobile can be identified as providing the nuance of 'vigorous execution' of the verbal idea.

 

 

 

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 06.07.2005



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/