Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit


> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 15:51:25 -0600, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
> >To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 3:31 PM
> >Subject: Re: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit
> >
> >
> >> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 15:01:30 -0600, "Patrick Ryan"
> >> <proto-language@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
> >> >To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> >> >Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:50 PM
> >> >Subject: Re: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit
> >
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >You made a point of contrasting the Lithuanian and Latvian forms.
> >> >
> >> >For <baidýti> you informed us the PIE was *bhoH2i-.
> >> >
> >> >Have you changed your mind or is this a simple typo?
> >>
> >> As Marius pointed out, my explanation for the circumflex in
> >> Lithuanian was dubious, so I have changed my mind.
> >> See Sergejus' post for an explanation involving metatony.
> >>
> >> >Also, since when is *dhe:(H)I- a causative? or mean 'make'.
> >>
> >> *dheh1- means "do, make; put" (still does in Dutch).
> >
> >
> >***
> >
> >What *dhe:(H)i- meant for PIE, and what *dhe:(H)i- meant for Germanic are
> >two separate issues in my mind.
>
> *dheh1i- is "to suck". The verbal root that has been
> discussed here all along is *dheh1-. What matters in the
> case of baidýti is what the root means in Balto-Slavic. LIV
> gives the following Balto-Slavic meanings: "legen; hinlegen;
> setzen; (Eier) legen; anlöten; machen; tun; sagen;
> sprechen".
>
> >Perhaps Sergei will change your mind on its verbal nature?
>
> Sergei just confirmed my earlier guess that the formation
> (baidýti) is denominal.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...

***

I guess you do not trust Pokorny who lists *dhi- as an extended form of
*dhe:-.

Pokorny list 'suck' as *dhe:(i)-; I guess you do not believe him on that
either.

Denominal? Does that mean that the first element is nominal: *bhoi-?


Patrick