Re: a:-stems

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] RE: a:-stems


> At 8:26:11 PM on Saturday, May 3, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > Miguel, in our discussion of the 'Vocalic Theory', you
> > mentioned an example of a development that you thought the
> > VT could not explain:
>
> > specifically, the instrumental singular of -*a-stems,
> > which you set forth as follows:
>
> > "
>
> > -y-Ha(:).
>
> > That's hardly satisfactory. We have three morphemes here:
> > the thematic vowel (*-o-), the feminine marker *-yeh2- ~
> > *-ih2-, and the instrumental ending *-eh1. The combine as
> > *-o-yh2-ah1, with colouring of the instrumental ending by
> > the *h2 of the feminine.
> > "
>
> [...]
>
> > We are talking, I presume, about the -*ia: variant of the
> > *a-stems.
>
> He was talking specifically about the Slavic and Sanskrit
> a:-stem instrumental singular and the Armenian oblique. You
> can find the full statement at
> <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/55746>.
>
> [...]
>
> > My sources list the instrumental singular of *a:-stems as
> > *Ø.
>
> You must not have Beekes. Talking about the h2-stems (i.e.,
> a:-stems), he gives the inst. sing. as *-h2eh1 (for
> *-h2-eh1), but adds that the Slav. and Skt. forms are
> different, having been taken over from the pronouns.
>
> Brian


***

Patrick:

Brian, are you sight-impaired? Do you see the quotation marks around the
statement to which I was responding?

I will bring it down from above so you can take a closer look.
"
>
> > -y-Ha(:).
>
> > That's hardly satisfactory. We have three morphemes here:
> > the thematic vowel (*-o-), the feminine marker *-yeh2- ~
> > *-ih2-, and the instrumental ending *-eh1. The combine as
> > *-o-yh2-ah1, with colouring of the instrumental ending by
> > the *h2 of the feminine.
> > "

The email you link was NOT what I was responding to at all!!!!

I was responding to what you now see (hopefully) for the second time.

And I do not appreciate your _emending_ reality to suit your purposes of
discreditation.

Can you read it?

Do you see the feminine marker "*-yeh2-" in the extract above? Does that
develop into PIE *-a: OR *-ia:? Put that answer in your reply, will you?

You do not know what you are talking about at all.

And take your snideness and cut off your own tongue with it.

I have Beekes, Lehmann, Brugmann, and will shortly have Szemerényi. In my
library not the public library. Actually, I have others, also.

Slavic *a:-stems, etc.? Now you are reading what is not there, and not
reading what is there.

If all you can do is 'misunderstand' with the object of slighting me, slight
someone else. I saw your mathematical logic in action; and it was sorely
wanting.

***