Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

Even misunderstanding, Arnaud has an occasional point.

*H1 is most likely a result of former *?.

There is simply no credible phonological rationale for contact with [?]
_voicing_ a voiceless stop, let alone spirantizing it.

Secondly, the PIE stative suffix cannot be *-eH1 because any PIE morpheme
_must_ begin with a consonant. PIE has no *VC morpheme.

The stative suffix is -*Ha(:), what most PIEists would probably write -*H2a.

This is the same form exactly as one of the locative suffixes.

I wonder if Olsen has ever heard of Brugmann (1888) who identified a PIE *-d
formant.


Who or what is an Olsen?


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too


> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:00:05 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >Talking about the spreading of dH(e)h1- compounds in PIE times:
> >
> >I think that Olsen theory regarding Latin -idus as sourced on
> >-h-to- > t-h-o > etc...is finally a mistake
>
> What Olsen actually says is that -idus comes from *-eh1-tos
> (> *-ethos > -idus), where *-eh1- is the stative suffix. For
> instance cale:re "to be warm" => calidus.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...
>
>