Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> > <miguelc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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@
> >
> > The point here is a phonetical one Miguel: if one assume a
> > metathesis h-t > t-h => I don't see any specific reason to assume
> > only -h1- and not h in general
> > So barba:tus is a real issue for her and she is quite aware

about

> > this: she quite tries to cover the issue with a
> > supposed 'restauration' in barba:tus
> >
> > Marius
>
>
> Olsen derived Latin acerbus as *h2ek^-ri-h2-to => so you can be

sure

> now that she consider the metathesis h-t > t-h available for any h-
> (to suppose in general h-t > t-h is for sure coherent)
>
> However no other cognate testifies the presence of -h2 in relation
> with *h2ek^-ri-
>
> Also regarding the semantism I prefer *h2ek^-ri-dHh1-o-
>
> Marius
>

Another 'hocus-pocus' at Olsen, this time with your eh1-to, Miguel:

is the derivation of Latin ru:bidus because due to its long u: it
cannot be derived from *h1rudH-eh1-to- (see Latin rube:re < *h1rudH-
eh1-) : viewing this Olsen tries to derive it from *h1roudH- etc...
but finally the related stative verb is only Latin rube:re

Marius