Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

<snip>

> Egyptian has s_z_b
> Uralic (UEW p432) has
> saps'e "Netznadel"
> saps looks like *sazb metathesized into
> *sazb > *saps-
> The IE word is borrowed sone
> (UEW p 441)
>
> Why should we need H1 in this root ?
>
> Arnaud

***

Perhaps you have forgotten what Brian informed you.

There is no attested <szb> in Egyptian!

How can you persist when you have been instructed by your betters?

There is only <mssb.t>, and the Egytologist who recorded it was Czérny, who
is generally regarded as an idiot.

Although Beinlich uncritically accepts it, Wörterbuch and Faulkner had
standards too high to permit themselves to include anything from Czérny.

The big tip-off that it is not native Egyptian is that, in 3000 years, no
<ssb> is recorded — not even once! This means Czérny misread something, a
scribe miswrote something, or that <mssb.t> is a foreign word — if it ever
really exists.

The Coptic form you drag out cannot be reasonably derived from your mythical
<*ssb>.

And IE *sone? What unreliable source did you purloin for that tidbit?



Patrick