On 2008-03-13 21:27, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> > 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.
How is your "*-dHeh1- formation theory" superior to Olsen's? Almost all
the -idus adjectives have, as their conterparts, verbs in -eo: and
-e:sco: and abstract nouns in -or. How do you account for this
miraculous coincidence?
That the relationship between ru:bidus and rubeo:/rube:sco:/rubor is not
perfect is a minor problem for Olsen. But for you the problem is more
serious. The regular connection between albeo: and albidus etc. can't be
accidental, so your theory should somehow be able to predict it as well.
Supposing that you _can_ explain it, you'll have to face the
irregularity of ru:bidus yourself.
Piotr