Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:06 AM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too
>
>
> I am not so sure you are right, Piotr.
>
> The root for 'protect (probably, closer to 'challenge danger by advancing
> to
> the front')' is clearly *po:(H)- not *pa:(H)-.
>
> Nonetheless, I still agree that *p&tér- means protector'.
>
> ===========
> I agree it means "father".
> the rest is speculations.
> Arnaud
> ==========
>
> Arnaud apparently does not recall *póti-s, 'lord of the manor', which I
> would write as *po(:)H-ti-s, 'person who provides protection', with
> subsequent shortening of *ó: to *ó.
>
> ============
> I remember reading that
> *pot was a kind of adverb
> pot sum "I am in the capacity of"
> and has Lituanian not a cognate of *pot ?
> Arnaud
> ==========
>
> In my opinion, *at(t)a is another word all together: *Ha(:)-tA, meaning
> 'consort'; it shows up in Egyptian as <jt>.
> Patrick
> ===========
> Connection between PIE *atta and Egyptian *j_t_j
> is highly unclear not to say impossible.
> Arnaud
> =============

***

It is actually quite straightforward.

Egyptian <j-> represents pre-PIE *?a

Egyptian <-t-> is pre-PIE *to

The word is <jt> not <jt.j>, written frequently <jtf> where the <f> is
foolishly held to be a determinative for 'father'. An adder, for God's sake!

It is a rather clumsy way to indicate that Egyptian had two major words for
'father': <jt> AND <jf>, which is probably cognate with PIE *Happa.

Egyptian <f> is pre-PIE *po.


Patrick