From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 58371
Date: 2008-05-05
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 9:18 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [tied] RE: a:-stems
> At 7:06:46 PM on Sunday, May 4, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
> >> At 8:26:11 PM on Saturday, May 3, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> 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.
>
> [...]
>
> > The email you link was NOT what I was responding to at
> > all!!!!
>
> I know.
***
Patrick:
Then why in God's name did you link to it?
****
It was, however, the one in which Miguel explained
> in greatest detail the derivation about which you were
> asking. It is also the one to which he was referring in
> this exchange with you, which led a couple of posts later to
> the bit that you just quoted and re-quoted:
>
> >If you think my theory cannot explain something, give me
> >a concrete example, and let us see.
>
> I already gave a concrete example: the ah2-stem Ins.sg.
> *-ojh2ah1.
>
> <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/56193>
>
> [...]
***
Patrick:
Can you not get it through your head that I was talking and asking about
the -*ia: variation of the *a:-stems. Why is that so difficult for you?
Nom. -*ia:; Instr. -*ia:
Tell me how that proves anything.
> > I have Beekes, Lehmann, Brugmann, and will shortly have
> > Szemerényi.
>
> Then in fact you *do* have a source that gives the a:-stem
> instr. sing. as something other than *Ø, since, as I pointed
> out in my previous post, Beekes does so.
>
> [...]
>
***
Patrick:
I am talking about -*ia: stems. Do I have to call you on the phone to
explain it?
***
> > Slavic *a:-stems, etc.? Now you are reading what is not
> > there, and not reading what is there.
>
> I am doing neither. I simply took the trouble to look up
> the post from which you quoted and trace the thread back to
> find out what Miguel had previously said. Had you done so,
> or had you restrained your tendency to substitute venom for
> substance, you might not have made such a fool of yourself
> (albeit mostly in the bits that I have kindly deleted).
>
> Brian
***
Patrick:
I will go with 'simple'.
***