Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-03-13 14:49, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > The predicted verbal adjectives are from some verbs isn't it?
>
> Yes, but the verbs in question aren't necessarily always attested.

We

> have nu:dus < *no(g)wedos (< Olsen's *nogWe-h1-to-), but no
> corresponding verb. It's like Eng. unkempt (from OE cemban 'to

comb',

> which has gone extinct).

Can you imagine, Piotr, that

=> they are not attested

simple because

=> they NEVER exist

and in this case there was no *nogW-eh1-to- either

(You started in an inverse order => once upon the time there was
*nogW-eh1-to- etc...)


And the right derivation is once again with a -dHeh1- one

*nogW-wo-dHh1-o-

where dHeh1- ('to place') as 'an emphatic' sufix means => 'to
preserve, to perpetuate, to keep' the *nogW-o (status) => NU:DUS

as in morbidus => 'to perpetuate the dead (status)' and also
as in solidus => 'to perpetuate 'the integrity as a whole' (status)'

> > II) If not, you need to show me another Latin verb from where to
> > derive ru:bidus ....and not to show me some PIE o-grades in

general

> > as possible formations.
>
> I can show you the adjective from which the hypothetical verb was
> derived and the verbal adjective derived from that verb. I can't

show

> you the "missing link", but at least I can argue in favour of

assuming

> that it once existed.

The "missing link" is not attested because it "never existed"

But if you want to discuss each times inventing first forms like
*putea and Latin-stative-verbs like *h1rou:dH-eh1- ...what could I
tell you?

To accept without any doubt all your invented "missing links"?

When I can think that they never existed?

> If <ru:bidus> is not associated with *ru:beo:
> (more or less synonymous with <rubeo:>), how else can you explain >

it?

Simple is a -dHeh1- formation too.

>
> What o-grades would you like to see? Stative verbs in *-eh1- are

derived

> from adjectives (including o-grade ones), and I don't think you

want to

> question the derivation of <ru:fus> from *roudHo-, do you? We have
> Slavic rudU, Lith rau~das, Germanic *rauða-, etc. The stative
> *h1rudH-éH1- is of course more widespread in IE and probably older

(OHG

> rote:n, OCS rUde^ti, OIr. ruidid), but *roudHe-h1- is not

impossible:


When I saw that the Stative Verb that exists in Latin is rube:re <
*h1rudH-eh1-, why should I suppose that a supposed Latin Stative
*h1roudH-eh1- existed and died, without any trace, too?

Only to agree with Mrs. Olsen?

> Slavic has reflexes of both *rUde^ti and *rude^ti, and OE has

<re:adian>

> 'be/become red'), if you need actually attested verbs with the o-

grade.

>
> Piotr

But is not the case for Latin.


Marius