Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

Do you not even know what you write?

From below (sic!):

"s-wed-to:r : the one (s-) who is wed (wed-)"


I have Akkadian grammars and have read them?


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:11 AM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Re: Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH-
> too
>
>
> There is absolutely no *s-prefix indicating agency in PIE.
>
> Patrick
>
> ===========
>
> As usual, you over-act as a result
> of your failure to understand.
> Who said : the one to be married is a agent ?
>
> S- is just a pronoun
> akin to *s-o "anaphoric".
>
> Read an Akkadian grammar
> and you will understand.
>
> Arnaud
>
> > ================
> >
> > A bold analysis of daughter *dhugH2°ter
> > could then be from *uk-sor "wife"
> > t?_wg-H2_t-er
> > one (-er) to be (t?-) married (wg) child (H2_t).
> >
> > But it's really bold.
> >
> > Note that sister is not so far :
> > s-wed-to:r : the one (s-) who is wed (wed-)
> >
> > Arnaud
> >
> > ===============
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>