From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 63984
Date: 2009-06-01
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"You asked whether anyone else had proposed the development;
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
>> At 7:10:59 PM on Sunday, May 31, 2009, alexandru_mg3
>> wrote:
>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
>>> <gpiotr@> wrote:
>>> 'To make sb. think' --> 'to instruct sb.' is a
>>>> completely natural development.
>>> 'To make sb. Think' ? --> this is the joke of this night
>>> :)
>> What would you expect a causative of *men- 'to think' to
>> mean? Obviously 'to make (someone) think', of which 'to
>> instruct (someone)' is, as Piotr said, a perfectly
>> natural development.
>>> Where you find it? can you quote sb. else that propose it?
>> Watkins 2000, for one. Fortson, for two:
>> The [Latin] second conjugation stem-vowel -e:- comes from
>> the contraction of the causative suffix *-éye- (§5.32,
>> e.g., mon-e:-re 'warn' < *mon-éye-, literally 'cause to
>> think'), and ... .
>> Michael Weiss, for three: he notes that one source of the
>> Latin second conjugation is PIE o-grade causative/iteratives
>> in *-éye- and gives <moneo:> 'warn' from *men- 'think' as an
>> example. Palmer, for four: he specifically mentions <moneo:>
>> as an example of a second conjugation verb from an original
>> causative.
> Hello Brian,
> I. If you have read the postings here, you could see, that
> nobody put in doubt the formation R(o)-'eye of this word.
> But the discussion was "WHAT THE ROOT IS HERE" (knowing
> that we have 2: men- and mneh2-) in order to explain mo- >
> mo- in LATIN.
> The main issue is that mo-n'e-ye doesn't explain the o- in
> Latin.
> So everybody knows here, "what the general opinion is" but
> this general opinion didn't explain the o- in Latin.
> II. I said: that to imagine an action 'X makes Y to<shrug> That's your problem.
> think' for me is not Ok.