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: Friday, February 29, 2008 7:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@>
> > wrote:
> > Marius
> >
>
> Patrick, mind-set & 'heart-set' are nouns in English, isn't it?
>
> In PIE the constructions were quite similar:
>
> *mn.s-dHeh1 'mindset' => Skt. me-dha': (noun)
> *k^red-dHeh1- 'heartset' => Skt. s'rad-dha': (noun)
>
>
> some others
> *swe-dHeh1
> *mis-dHeh1
> *miHes-dHeh1
>
> As a general pattern we have dHeh1 as a full-grade
>
> So I think that initially there there was the Noun 'heartset'-
> >'belief' *k^red-dHeh1 that preceded the verbal-formations
> (as in *mn.s-dHeh1 'mindset'->'wisdom')
>
> Marius
>
> ***
>
> It is difficult to believe you have invested so much energy in

defending

> this false argument.

I knew the examples before this topic about German weak preterite
*k^red-dheh1 is a doubtfull formation (at least for me) but now I'm
convince that initially there was a noun 'heartset' like the other
one 'mindset' => quite strange: but it was as in today English

> You pose two examples:

and some others three (quite enough examples I would say)
*swe-dHeh1
*mis-dHeh1
*miHes-dHeh1

> 1) *k^red-dhe:-, which you interpret as a combination of *k^red-,

heart',

> and *dhe:-, 'set (noun)';

as *dhe:-, 'set (verb)' NOT NOUN => where you see a noun there?
I said that *k^red-dhe: is a noun as a whole

> 2) *mNs-dhe:-, which you interpret as a combination of *mens-

, 'mind', and

> *dhe:-, set (verb).
>
> Since *dhe:- is in full-grade in both, the stress-accent,

presumably fell on

> it: *dhé:-, at least, initially.

Correct, the stress is on *dhé:-
And is quite the situation both for Skt. s'raddha': as for Skt.
medha':

> There cannot be any doubt that in the second example, *mNs- is in
> zero-grade, the pattern we would expect to see in a syllable

preceding a

> full-grade syllable.
>
> In the first example, *k^red- appears to be in full-grade; and on

this

> questionable basis, you assign a nominal status for this first

*dhe:-.

I didn't say that *dhe:- is a noun. It plays a suffix role here but
it is the verb 'to set'

Regardin g the grade, seems a full grade due to e.
'Everybody says' only that *k^red- there is the 'heart'-word
(Only Beneviste 1969 consider that there is no 'heart' inside, but
this is another story)
But 'nobody knows' what was the PIE root for 'heart'
Do you?

If a full-grade: is quite a late PIE formation (havind 2 full vowels)

I said that the compound *k^red-dHeh1 is a noun based on Skt.
s'raddha:' that is a noun too

> I say 'appears' because I am not at all sure that *k^red- can be

safely

> analyzed as 'full-grade'.

I have the same doubt. Because the root is 'unknown'

> I favor the view that the full-grade is *k^erd-
> showing the same pattern as *mens-, i.e. *CéRC-.

Do you know the PIE root for 'heart'?

> If this is true, your argument has no meaning. Both compounds are
> stress-unaccented NOUN + stress-accented VERB.

Correct the accent is on the verbal-suffix -dHe'h1.
But I don't see any issue here.
What is the objection?

> A far more serious objection is that, contrary to your analysis of
> *k^red-dhe:-, *dhe:- is not known as a noun.

Really?
Take a closer look to see if in Skt. there is a noun s'raddha': or
not.

> The simplest nominal forms from
> this verb are *dhe:-t-, usually with some further formant.
>
> You cannot assign nominal status to the first *dhe:- just to

satisfy the

> needs of your theory when there apparently is no evidence of its

nominal use

> in this simple form.

This is only your misunderstanding I never said that *dhe:- is a noun

> I do not believe you have a credible argument at all.
> Patrick

I said that the results are nouns

*mn.s-dHeh1 'mindset' => Skt. me-dha': (noun)
*k^red-dHeh1- 'heartset' => Skt. s'rad-dha': (noun)

Finally, what is your objection?

Marius

P.S. By the way, mindset and 'heartset' are nouns in English? :)