--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-03-02 09:59, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > I agree only (of course) that there are different derivations of
the
> > original form, with thematicization for some (e.g. Gk. e:tHos),
>
> Gk. e:tHos is _not_ thematic. It's a neuter -es-stem
See Lubotsky for details.
> > but
> > this is something else and this didn't put in question in anyway
the
> > original form.
>
> "The original form" may not exist at all as a lexical unit in some
of
> the cases.
Based on what 'may not exist' ?
we have PIE *gwou-dheh1- in Skt. becaus we don't see an a: in Latin
bufo:
> > 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).
>
> What are "ordinary *-dHeh1 nouns?" I haven't heard of such a
category.
I didn't say 'ordinary' I said 'originary'
If you not heard yet, I can tell you that this category is formed
by :
mn.s-dheh1, swe-dHeh1, k^red-dHeh1, mis-dHeh1, mihes-dheh1 etc...
Next of course tht words like mis-dH-o- swe-dH-eh2 etc... can be
formed by the language : why to stop the language to do its normal
derivations? But this doesn't mean that a derrivation appeared first
But even supposing that we have originary mn.s-dh(h1)-eh2 in what
aspect this will change the idea that originary a noun was formed
(and only after a verb appeared in a rare case?): a supposed k^red-dh
(h1)-eh2 can well appeared originary before the verb k^red-dHeh1-
etc...and being the 'single supposed verb' in -dheh1 is impossible to
accept a distinct formation only for it: will be a HAPAX to use you
own words
> If such a description means anything at all, it might refer to
nomina
> agentis with *-dheh1- (a root noun) as the second member, similar
to the
> Skt. vr.tra-han- type. Abstracts and nomina actionis just don't
look
> like that in PIE.
Of course, because they are not abstract and nomina actionis and
not nomina agentis of a root noun *dHeh1-
They are a special class based on -dHeh1
'mindset' and 'heartset' in English represent a very similar
special class too: but seems that you willingly ignore this strong
similarity that is against all you have asserted
English 'heartset' can be anything you want but not a VERB: the
originary situation with k^red-dHeh1- was similar.
Marius