From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 54637
Date: 2008-03-04
----- Original Message -----
From: "mcarrasquer" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 6:19 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> If you believe Pokorny, why did you write above: "*dheh1i- is "to
suck""
> when the base is obviously *dhe:(H)-? NOT *dhe:(H)i-?
The base is obviously *deh1i-. As I already explained, roots of this
structure alternate in the following way:
*dheh1i-V-, *dheih1-C, *dheh1CC/*dheh1-C#
***
Sorry, just do not subscribe.
The verbal root is *dhe:(H)-; the -*y is a root extension.
Why introduce a concept like "base" except to mirk the issue?
We have roots, we have extensions which produce stems.
***
> Is the first element, which is the root of the noun <bai~das>, itself
> nominal? That is *bhoi-.
The root of a noun is a nominal root. In this case, it is built out of
the composition of two verbal roots: *bhoih2- and *dh(e)h1-.
For expected *báidas, Lithuanian shows bai~das, with metatony.
--Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
***
Your answers are diverging ever more significantly from reality.
The correct answer is *bho:(H)-i- is nominal; combined with *dhe:(H)-, a
verb, it produced a new verb with a meaning derived from the combination of
Noun + Verb.
PIE did not combine Verb + Verb à la Chinoise.
Patrick