Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-03-16 13:59, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Piotr the thematic -o- wasn't inherently accented.
> > Do you want to make for you a resume of the PIE accentuation
> > patterns to see this ?
> >
> > Marius
> >
> > P.S.: And I will not open here the theory regarding the 'origin

of i-

> > /u-' as 'unstressed thematic o' (when I can show you that i and u
> > existed as full-vowels in PIE times)
> > => because Once Again this is another theory that belongs to
> > Rasmussen's family and propagated by you
> > Do you have some other theories with no link to Jens?
>
> This sounds outright paranoid. To quote an article about *-tí- and

*-tó-

> by Brent Vine (who is a UCLA man, in no way dependent on the

Rasmussen

> family):
>
> "Despite the fact that primary ti-stems (nomina actionis,

abstracta)

> generally appear with zero grade of the root (Ved. matí- 'thought,
> devotion', etc.), it seems all but universally assumed that such
> formations originally inflected according to the proterokinetic

pattern,

> with full-grade root and zero grade of the suffix in strong forms,

and

> zero-grade root with full grade of the suffix in weak forms."
>
> From (at least) Szemerényi to Meier-Brügger all standard works on

> will tell you the same thing. Don't blame me for agreeing with Jens
> where agreement is general.
> Piotr

What you quote above has nothing to do with what you have said
previously:

"o - inherently accented'
"i/u - inherently unaccented"

if this means proterokinetic for you...than :)

But let's come on the topic please.

Marius