Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 4:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@>
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Marius, you have a serious misunderstanding of compound

structure

> > in PIE.
> > >
> > > It is a phrase, 'put fear into' = 'scare' in _exactly_ the same
> > pattern as
> > > 'put heart into' = 'trust'.
> > >
> > > Normally, the nominal element comes first, then the verbal
> element.
> >
> >
> >
> > From where you arrive to a Noun when we have Only the Root for
> the
> > Stem?
> >
> > So I didn't agree here:
> > bHoih- in baidyti is Only a Root-Stem and the Root basically
> > indicates the Verb not the Noun => so is not Noun+Verb => is
> > Verb+<dheh1> (in baidyti I mean)
> >
> > <Noun + dheh1-> gave Noun in PIE
> > <Verb + dheh1-> gave Verb in PIE
> > etc...
> >
> > ***
> >
> > I analyze the pattern found in *k^red-dhe:- as Noun + Verb. Do you
> not?
> >
> > Root-Stem? How about Root Noun? I presume you know of them.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > ***
>
> Patrick, I avoid to give *k^red-dHe:- as reference for a verbal
> formation (even is well known in comparison with some others)

because

> its formation is at least for me, 'not clear enough' : 2 full

vowels,

> a possible original noun *k^red-dh-eh2 'trust' cannot be excluded,
> etc... ) => maybe somebody else here can explain better this

formation

> Of course 'to place trust' sound so nice as in an American Movie...
>
> But 'the fear' (-> the Noun) was *bHoih-u-, an u-stem, so I'm quite
> confident that baidyti < *bHoih-dHh1- is a verbal-construction
>
> Marius
>
> ***
>
> What you avoid is to acknowledge that *k^red-dhe:- is NOUN+VERB.
>
> Why?????????

I told you already (why you asked again?):
I will repeat:
Because we have 2 full vowels that indicates a 'later' formation in
later PIE times
So nobody can be sure that k^red-dHe:- (the verb) was formed
directly from k^red- or from a noun *k^red-dH- 'trust'

But doesn't matter the history of this formation : this formation
is different in relation with baidyti based on what I showed you above

> Perhaps if you represented the root correctly, some of your

confusion might

> resolve itself:
>
> it is *bho:(H)i-.

I represented it correctly *bHoih- in relation with the Baltic
reference that I gave here
=> you need to consult some books first before to talk about :
' confusion, irresonsible and borderline dishonest' is not quite
the 'right vocabulary to use in public, especially when you are not
aware at all about that Baltic forms

> As far as *bhoHi-u- being, the noun, you need better reference

books:

>
> where is the -*u- in Old Indian bhi:-H, 'fear'.

The -*u- is in Baltic (and Not Only) as is too the verb reference
baidyti that I gave you: so I was quite coherent
You need again to consult some books first

> That you should assert so confidently that the noun is a -*u-stem,

I find

> irrepsonsible and borderline dishonest.

See above and refrain you more.

> If you have to maintain your argument with such "argument", you can

discuss

> this with yourself.
> Patrick
>

Your nervous reaction is not quite Ok, this is all I can tell you.

I will continue to answer you only if you refrain your 'personal'
reactions.

Marius