Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

On 2008-03-02 11:36, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> > Gk. e:tHos is _not_ thematic. It's a neuter -es-stem
>
> See Lubotsky for details.

What details? An -es-stem is an -es-stem.

> we have PIE *gwou-dheh1- in Skt. becaus we don't see an a: in Latin
> bufo:

Are you sure it's *dHeh1- 'put'? I think the second element is supposed
to be *dHeh1i- 'suck' (if the 'cowsucker' etymology is correct) -- an
entirely different though accidentally similar root. Lat. bu:fo: is a
nasal stem, i.e. a related but not directly comparable formation.

> 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

You don't seem to understand what "hapax" means. I don't claim
*k^red(z)dHeh1- is a "distinct formation". I analyse it as a
univerbation based on a fixed expression (*k^red dHeh1-), just as the
collocation *dems potis was lexicalised as a single word (*demspotis).
Such univerbations differ from "ordinary" compounds in that the first
element retains traces of inflection (I interpret *k^red as a locative,
*dems is gen.sg.).

> Of course, because they are not abstract and nomina actionis and
> not nomina agentis of a root noun *dHeh1-

What you present is a whole bag of apples and oranges. Some of them
_are_ abstracts, others _are_ action or agent nouns.

> 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

They don't constitute "a special class" in English. If you think they
do, please define this class and tell us what is special about it.

> English 'heartset' can be anything you want but not a VERB: the
> originary situation with k^red-dHeh1- was similar.

So why is it a verb in several branches? I see no analogy with
<heartset> at all. We have the masculine agent noun (or adjective)
*k^red-dHeh1- 'believer; pious', attested in Indo-Iranian, but
*k^red-dHh1-ah2 'trust, confidence' (f.) is a different formation. Is it
more plausible to derive the noun 'believer' regularly from a verb
meaning 'to trust', or the other way round (especially if "the other way
round" violates the PIE rules of word formation)?

Piotr