From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 57019
Date: 2008-04-07
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] RE: Priimary Stem Formants: =*H, -*i/y, *-u/w
> On 2008-04-07 23:00, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
<snip
> > 4. By the way, The pattern -eu -eh2 -em was proposed for the first
> > time by Benveniste : I didn't see any reference to him in your
> > article regarding "the meaning of life" or in this forum.
>
> The existence of the set has become common knowledge by now (and I think
> Hirt and maybe others realised it well before Benveniste). One doesn't
> have to reference the obvious, just as one doesn't have to quote de
> Saussure every time the laryngeals are mentioned. LIV likewise regards
> *drah2-/*drem-/*dreu- as related without mentioning Benveniste (or any
> other source) too. The parallellism between *drem-/*drah2- and
> *gWem-/*gWah2- is also common knowledge and I don't claim to have
> discovered it. My personal contribution consists in adding *gWeu- to
> cbove you complete the pattern. I don't think it has been done by anyone
> before.
***
Piotr,
It seems to me that your argument is contradictory:
how can you say: "On the contrary, all the available evidence shows them to
be indivisible,
. .
and the same is true of roots like *//werh1-// 'speak', *//perh2-// 'trade',
*//gWerh3-//
'swallow, devour'. A root like *werh1- has no relatives of the form *wer- or
*werC- (where *C is something else than *h1)".
When above, you say:
"The parallellism between *drem-/*drah2- and *gWem-/*gWah2- is also common
knowledge."
If we can accept **der- as a basis for *dre-m- and *dra(:)-H(2)-, why can we
not accept *wer- as a basis for w(e)re(:)H-?
Also, there is another contradiction.
You are adding *gWeu- to *gWa(:)H(2)- and *gWem-.
"indivisible": is this just not what you said about *CVH-, *CVw-, and *CVy?
and let us add *CVm to the group.
Why is 'my' *CVH indivisble when yours (*gWa(:)H(2)-) is divisble?
Patrick