Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

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

>
> On 2008-03-02 00:01, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > But you cannot assert *k^red-dH(h1)-áh2 for this noun in place of
> > *k^red-dHeh1 when we have
> > *mn.s-dHeh1 (noun) Skt. medhá:-
>
> Skt. medHá: (f.) 'wisdom' is not the same as Av. mazda: (m.) 'wise'
>
> > *miHes-dHeh1 (noun) Skt. miy'edha-
>
> <miyedHa-> (Av. miiazda-) is a thematic noun. Its derivation must

begin

> with the construction *mihes dHeh1-, the first part of which again

looks

> like a fossilised endingless locative (cf. *meih-es- > Skt. mayas-
> 'pleasure, delight').
>
> > *swe-dHeh1 (noun)
>
> Skt. svedHa: 'self-power, possession' is declined like an ordinary

*-ah2

> feminine (so are <s'raddHa:> and <medHa:> 'wisdom'). It should be
> analysed as *swe-dH(h1)-ah2, either based on the neo-root *swe(:)dH-

,

> abstracted from something like *sweh1 dHeh1- 'to place/lay down for
> oneself', alongside *swedH-o- and *swe(h1)dH-es- (e.g. Gk. e:tHos).
> *swedH-ah2- is visible in Lat. soda:lis.
>
> > *mis-dHeh1 (noun)
>
> Thematic again (*mizdHo- ~ *mizdHah2). The identity of the first

element

> (if this is another *dHeh1- compund) is not quite clear to me.
>
> Piotr

I do not agree.

I agree only (of course) that there are different derivations of the
original form, with thematicization for some (e.g. Gk. e:tHos), but
this is something else and this didn't put in question in anyway the
original form.

All of them are usually analysed as originary -dHeh1 Nouns (see
Lubotsky, etc...I can quote at list another five names here, but I
will not insist anymore).

Marius