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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 8:47 PM
Subject: 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

***

Brian, you are right on every one of your points.

The circumstances are such that proof of my proposition is very difficult.

But there are a few additional facts that support my supposition.

Let us look at <praetor>, 'he who habitually goes before'.

We never find (I think) examples of habitual personal agent nouns with
reflexes of PIE *dhro-.

On the other hand, consider am example like ME 'grader', which is both a
machine for landscaping (tool), and an examiner of tests.

There is also comparative evidence.

Egyptian -tj is a well-recognized formant of agent nouns; here, as in
PIE, -t- is the operative element.

Then there is the internal PIE evidence that I think Arnaud brought up but
none of you addressed. Reflexes of PIE -*tu and -*ti do not have -*dhu
and -*dhi variants in Latin which we should expect under similar conditions
at juncture that supposedly modify *-tr/lo inti -*dhr/lo.

I think the total picture slightly favors my interpretation of the facts.


Patrick