Re: Mille (thousand)

That's a good question but I'd suppose that was true
only during the IE phase and that afterwards it was
seen to stand for something --perhaps as an
augmentative but the loss in Italic has been explained
elsewhere. I see it as a meaningful adjectival or
adverbial prefix that intensifies or augments a word
and which in the IE stage can be used or not used as
the speaker sees fit. But at a certain phase between
IE and the daughter languages, it becomes fixed or
lost.


--- "Daniel J. Milton" <dmilt1896@...> wrote:

>
>
> Would anyone but a linguist "surmise" or
> "reanalyse" an s-mobile?
> Isn't the s mobile because it comes and goes
> naturally without thought
> by the speakers?
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> >
> > My point is that they may have forgotten that
> *smi-
> > was a morpheme and surmised that *s- was s-mobile
> >
> > --- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Rick McCallister
> > >
> > > I've seen that but wondered about it
> > > Was the *s- reanalyzed as s-mobile?
> > > > ===================
> > > > http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE164.html
> > > >
> > > If you cut *smi - ghesl-
> > > as s + mi-gheslo
> > >
> > > How do you reanalyse mi as < sem "one" ?
> > >
> > > I don't think it can be *s mobile.
> > >
> > > Arnaud
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping