Re: Re[3]: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:14:41 +0100, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>
>>To recapitulate what I've said about */e:/:
>>
>>There are at least three sources for PIE *e:
>>(1) Szemerényi lengthening of *-éCF (where F = /s/ or /h2/)
>>> *-é:C(F), in the nominative singular (*-s), the NA plural
>>n. (*-h2) and the s-aorist (*-s-).
>>Miguel
>>=================
>>
>>Why should this Sz. lengthening not apply
>>to *yekwr.
>
>1) Because it's a neuter.
>
>2) Even if it wasn't a neuter, because it's yé:kWr and not
>*yékWo:r.
>=========
>No, M. Carrasquer Vidal,
>
>The *description* of a theory
>is not the *proof* of a theory.
>Hammering the description
>ever and ever again is not a proof.
>Maybe, it relieves you
>but it proves *nothing*.

I was merely replying to your nonsensical suggestion that
Szemerényi lengthening could be applied in the wrong place
to a neuter word.

>You have not provided the slighest
>beginning of an explanation for
>Latin iecur and Skrt yakr

I _have_ explained it.

>>and *gwher ?
>
>It might apply to Nsg. *g^hwé:r but hardly to the Npl. which
>is consistently *g^hwé:res (Grk. thêres, Lith. z^vé:res,
>-y~s, Slav. zvêrIje).
>
>======
>No, M. Carrasquer Vidal,
>
>Latin again has f-e-rox
>with a short e
>and this item constitutes
>another refutation of your defunct theory.

Latin ferus and ferox are quite different formations. I was
only talking about the consonant stem *g^hwe:r-, which is
unattested in Latin.

>>***dhe:ghom does not exist
>>Anatolian is ambiguous and does not
>>permit to contrast any e from e:
>>As you have repeatedly explained
>>but failed to understand what it entails
>>for your theory.
>
>As I have repeatedly explained, Anatolian provides clear
>evidence to distinguish between /e/, /e:/ and /eh1/.
>===========
>
>No, M. Carrasquer Vidal,
>
>You have explained that
>Hittite always has e: which
>doesn't contrast with
>never-attested *e
>Anatolian does not support your theory.
>It's neutral.

And you're confusing Hittite and Anatolian again. Are you
being deliberately stupid?

>>*steu
>>Hittite isduwai has no e(:) at all (!)
>>Greek steumai has short e (!)
>
>Exactly! Being a middle it should have zero grade.
>Middles with full grade vowel are Narten forms (with
>original long vowel).
>
>Present sg. staumi, stausi, stauti (*ste:u-mi, -si, -ti).
>
>Learn about "Narten presents".
>
>===============
>No, M. Carrasquer Vidal,
>
>This is completely circular.
>
>You are trying to sell a ghost *e:
>supposedly existing in a
>reconstructed paradigm
>That is nowhere attested.
>You are invoking as a *proof*
>something that is a *hypothesis*
>
>What about learning some basics
>about proof, theory, description
>and hypothesis, epistemology, etc ?
>
>These Narten Presents
>only exist in the small group of
>contiguous central PIE languages
>where you pick up your examples :
>Greek, Balto-slavic, Avestic,
>Don't they ?
>
>Your theory is fancy.
>It's refuted by macro-comparative data
>and it's unsupported even by IE data.

Well, your ignorance of the IE data is so abysmal, that your
opinion on the matter is of no value.

I'll stop wasting my time.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...