Re: Mille (thousand)

Daniel,

I think you have the wrong idea about s-mobile.

First came the root: *CVC.

Then came the s-mobile: *sCVC.

The fact that *CVC exists does not prove a deletion from *sCVC but rather
that *s- is an addition to a root.

I believe a distinction was made semantically between *CVC, normal verbal
activity, and *sCVC, intensive (sometimes 'good', sometimes 'bad') verbal
activity.

*CVC would be appropriate for one context; *sCVC to another.

With time, of course, the inevitable confusion reigns.

The strongest proof of this is that no one has really ever proved what
s-mobile contributes to a verb's meaning. +intensive would be an addition
particularly hard to isolate with any reliability.

After staring uncomprehendingly at *su-, 'well', for so many years, it has
finally occurred to me that *su- is _not_ a zero-grade of **sAw- but rather
a zero-grade of **sWA-, a word inherited from the Pontic period of IE, which
had semi-vocalic glides (even farther back from *sWo(:)-, 'clan(nish), good'
and PL SHO).


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel J. Milton" <dmilt1896@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Mille (thousand)




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