From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 54505
Date: 2008-03-02
----- Original Message -----
From: "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:01 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
<snip>
>
> 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
***
Well, it is "clear enough" for anyone who knows anything about this subject.
Noun + Verb is a clear and usual pattern for compounds not only in PIE but
also in the derived languages. Get a book on PIE syntax and stop basing your
argument on silliness like "*k^red-dh-eh2", which is simply ridiculous.
***
> ***
>
> 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
***
Is "later PIE times" still not PIE???????
What are you playing at?
***
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'
***
Of course we can be sure! There is no PIE -*dh that forms nouns.
Do you know nothing?
***
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
***
Are you actually intelligent or is your butchered English the problem?
You did not represent in correctly for PIE, which is *bhoHi-.
If this was some Proto-Baltic form, why did you not label it as such?
Are you saying that between PIE and Proto-Baltic there was a metathesis to
**bhoiH-?
Do you even know what you are saying.
***
=> you need to consult some books first before to talk about :
' confusion, irresponsible 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
***
Look, no offense, but Baltic is only a small part of PIE.
You used the -*u stem argument to exclude *bhoHi-dhe:- as PIE Noun + Verb
compound.
Unless you think Baltic is the parent of PIE, what obtained in PIE should be
decisive for what was passed down to Baltic.
***
> That you should assert so confidently that the noun is a -*u-stem,
I find
> irresponsible 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
***
I saw above and found that your argument is totally worthless.
***
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
***
No need.
You are so confused and resistant to linguistic facts that I consider it a
waste of my time to pursue anything you.
Find another sucker.
Patrick