Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<miguelc@...> wrote:

>
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:19:01 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> ><miguelc@> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 14Mar 2008 00:06:21 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
> >> <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 2008-03-13 23:33, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Since *-tor, *-ti and *-tu are all unstressed suffixes, and
> >> >> Olsen's rules *do* apply to *-tr-ó- (*-tl-ó-) [a thematized,
> >> >> and stressed, derivative of *-tor], maybe that could solve
> >> >> some of the issues. *-tó- is of course inherently stressed
> >> >> (and so is *-áh2-, I think, but not *-eh1-).
> >> >
> >> >A brilliant idea. Your own?
> >>
> >> I saw *-tor, *-ti and *-tu versus *-tó- (and *-tr-ó-), and
> >> the thought came to me, so it's at least independently mine.
> >
> >
> >
> > Miguel, before to go further, this time with a 'Miguel-Olsen'
> >theory where is the accent on ph2ter/ph2te:r?
>
> *p&2té:r, G. *p&2trés, Npl. *p&2téres.
>
> In Olsen's formulation, the "pre-aspirating" effect of *h1
> and *h2 applies only to the consonantal (non-vocalized)
> allophones.

This distinction between h1./h2. and h1/h2 is another 'hocus-pocus'
of Mrs. Olsen, Miguel =>

1. the vocalisation of a kind of /x/ in *ph2te'r CANNOT BE ANYTHING
ELSE BUT /Vx/ (by adding a vowel before it /p&x-t'er/)

2. If you can vocalized in any other way an /x/ -> be the guest of
Mrs. Olsen but not one of mine

In other words if you show me 'in what' a /px/ etc.. should be
vocalized different from /p&x/ /pIx/ /pax/ /pex/ /pox/ /pix/ /pux/
etc...Ok ..if not let's forget this assumption

I thought that you will stop to continue after you will put the right
accent on ph2t'er, but I was wrong... :)

> Cf. also *dhug&2té:r, with no /th/ in either Greek thugáte:r
> or Skt. duhitá:.
> The "post-aspiration" in the latter form
> (*g > *gh before *h2), suggests that this was an older
> (sporadic?) phenomenon (dating to before the laryngeal was
> vocalized).

Miguel the Laryngeal wasn't vocalized BEFORE or LATER => It was
vocalized Since It Was in Existence in order that a Human Being to
arrive to pronounce the syllables of ph2ter > something like /p&x-
ter/ etc...and that ones of dHugh2ter /dHu-g&x-ter/

So *g > *gh before *h2 is another argument AGAINST Mrs. Olsen theory
showing her that the nature of laryngeal wasn't destroyed by its
vocalisation

> The lack of pre-aspiration looks like yet another argument
> in favour of root-stress in the word for "mother". Skt. has
> ma:tá: against Greek mé:te:r. Both the failure of Dybo's
> Italo-Celtic(-Germanic) pretonic shortening law, and the
> absence of Olsen's law support PIE *méh2te:r (so would the
> lack of Verner's law in Germanic, but analogical Ausgleich
> has made that picture rather blurry).
>
> We further have bhráh2te:r and *yén&2te:r, both with
> root-stress. Any other kinship terms in *-h2ter-?

Correct here. me'h2-ter and bre'h2-ter were stressed on the root.
So no link with your suppositions, that's all.


Marius