Re: Re[7]: [tied] Mille (thousand)

That kind of open-mindedness is essential and absolutely admirable in my
opinion, Miguel.

But, in the real world we live in, it is justifiable to play the odds so
long as we are aware of what we are doing.

I think the probabilities greatly favor the idea that *s- was a morpheme. As
you say, it is barely possible that it was not.

And actually, I think my suggestion (I will not have been the first) to
connect *su- and *s- is a fairly decent rationale for explaining it.

So, my question to Brian really boils down to: do you agree that the
probabilities favor *s- as a morpheme while holding open the possibility it
was not.

I think it is a quite reasonable question.


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re[7]: [tied] Mille (thousand)


> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:49:08 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >You cannot really be serious in doubting *s- was a morpheme meaning
> >something, can you?
>
> That's not the only possibility. It's also possible that
> s-mobile is a phonetic phenomenon. Sandhi has been
> suggested, or a special phoneme (like the Kartvelian
> "s-mobile"). I don't really see how the sandhi explanation
> (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_s-mobile)
> can work, and things in PIE are not as clear-cut dialectally
> as in Kartvelian (where *L gives Georgian /s/, Zan 0, and
> Svan /l/), but as long as there is no convincing explanation
> for s-mobile, all possibilities must be kept open.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...
>
>