Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

====================

> And IE *sone? What unreliable source did you purloin for that tidbit?
> Patrick
> ================
> *sone is the ""reconstruction""
> in UEW for "string"
> I never wrote it's IE.
> Cf.Message 55352

***

Here is what you actually wrote:

> > 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

What you wrote means that the IE root is *sone, and that it was borrowed
from Uralic.

If you did not mean to say this, what is the IE root you believe derives
from Uralic *sone? And why did you not specify it?

***

I'm not responsible for what you fail to understand
I provided message 55352
which makes a more extensive description
of my point of view
I never wrote IE ever had **sone
"sone" is what you get in UEW on page 441.
I never implied this stupid reconstruction
was Uralic borrowed into IE.
I precisely wrote the contrary.

Now
I let you enjoy your rear-guard skirmishes.

Arnaud

==================