Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

And I continue to be amused by the fact that you never answer a direct
question.

Is it because you cannot?


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] 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
>
> ==================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>