Re[2]: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too

At 8:28:04 PM on Saturday, March 15, 2008, Patrick Ryan
wrote:

> From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>

>> On 2008-03-15 23:59, Patrick Ryan wrote:

>>> Olsen wrong again.
>>> There is no alternation between *r and *l in PIE.
>>> -dhr/lo- is occupational
>>> -tr/lo is habitual
>>> Easily confused; and what is easy you can be sure will
>>> be done.

>> So ploughing (*h2ar&3-trom > aratrum) is habitual while
>> sifting (*krei(h1)-tHrom > cri:brum) is occupational?

[Velar corrected.]

> You know as well as I do that the original meaning or use
> of a formant is no proof against it being used in a wrong
> if semantically similar construction.

> The element -dh- in these is 'handle, tool'. It leads to
> an occupational usage.

> The element -t- in these refers to future action, which
> leads to habituality.

> Latin <aratrum> is not "ploughing" but rather the 'plow'.
> Here, the 'plow' is personalized as 'the one who turns up
> earth'.

> Latin <cribrum> is nor 'sifting' but 'sieve'. Here -*dh-
> works as the 'tool with which one sifts'.

Of course <aratrum> and <cribrum> refer to the instruments:
that's why they have (forms of) the suffix used to form
instrumental nouns. A sieve is an instrument for sifting; a
plough is an instrument for ploughing.

Your glosses appear to be entirely arbitrary: why is a
plough personalized, but not a sieve, except that it suits
your view of the suffixes? Alternatively, why is a sieve a
tool, but not a plough, except that it suits your view of
the suffixes?

That view itself seems more than a little problematic: even if
reference to future action leads to reference to
habituality, which is by no means self-evident, there seems
to be no basis for connecting these with personalization.
Indeed, 'the one who turns up earth' sounds to me like an
occupational description.

Brian