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

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 22:22:47 -0500, "Patrick Ryan"
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>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-.

Looks like you are confusing the suffix *-tor (C-stem) with
the suffix *-tró- (o-stem).

What Olsen says is that there is no instrumental suffix
*-dhro-, just like there are no agent nouns in
*-dhor-/*-dhér-. What has been mistaken for *-dhró- is in
fact *-thró-, from *-h1/2-tró-.

>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.

It was Marius (quoting from Google books), and it was
addressed.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...