Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

Older ideas get fine-tuned and re-introduced all the time.

But I think we will all come closer to the facts if we look at it as some
kind of a habitual activity, as for *bhra(:)ter.

Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too


> I've seen sister analyzed as "one's own (female)"
> based on *su- but something is missing. Perhaps "one's
> own pledged (female)" --i.e. if Marcel Mauss is not so
> outdated to be considered useless.
>
> --- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rick McCallister
> > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH-
> > too
> >
> > My point is that word first meant "female" --i.e. a
> > grown daughter or a daughter who would be married
> > and nurse her children
> >
> > ================
> >
> > 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
> >
> > ===============
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>