[tied] Re: IE thematic presents and the origin of their thematic vo

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > As I try to keep reminding myself, there's always a downside to a
> > snappy comeback. In this case you have just agreed with me that

*bHo:r-

> > didn't necessarily mean "habitual thief" from the beginning.
>
> But there is such a thing as the prototypical meaning. A "thief" is
> prototypically a kind of habitual criminal, i.e. somebody who keeps
> stealing things, and only secondarily anyone who has pinched

something,

> sometime, somewhere.

So true, yes. However, I was talking morphology, you replied with
semantics. In other words, if someone had created the word *bHo:r-
meaning "thief at this occasion" it would almost immediately have
slipped semantically into the "habitual thief" sense. The thing that
bugs me is your "resultative, iterative" category. Those two are
mutually exclusive.
Another thing, why should a thief be a "carrier"? And why a "habitual
carrier" at that? Were carriers notorious for unreliability in PIE
times? And why does Russian have the very similar 'vor' "thief" (BTW
in the comment to this, please leave out the sentence "the two are
completely unrelated"; I have a copy of Pokorny too)?

> > So *bhe:r- would mean "carrier, porter" if it had existed ...?
>
> Yes. 'Carrier', unmarked for habituality, frequency or

notoriousness.

>

And fraudulous intent?


Torsten