From: tgpedersen
Message: 64136
Date: 2009-06-11
>Here are some more annoying facts to disturb reality:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > On 2009-06-04 12:20, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> > > This clearly show you that this alternance EXISTS.
> > >
> > > Is this an Schwebeablaut issue, here, Piotr? For sure NOT...
> > >
> > > So why you have created confusions by invoking it?
> >
> > The original question was the etymology of <moneo:>. You tried to
> > argue that -- contrary to communis opinio -- it comes from
> > *menh2-, the alleged by-form of *mneh2-. What you posit here _is_
> > schwebeablaut in a verb root, and worse still, it's precisely the
> > arbitrarily invoked, sloppy kind of schwebeablaut that haunted IE
> > studies but was put to rest by Raimo Anttila in his book. If you
> > have read him, you know what I mean. It has nothing to do with
> > the vocalism of accentually mobile nouns (like *gWen-h2-/*gWn-
> > ah2-), which is governed by different morphophonological rules.
> >
> > Let me repeat: the derivation of *mon-éje/o- from *men- 'think,
> > consider' as a handbook example of a PIE causative is impeccable
> > notwithstanding your noisy propaganda to the contrary. 'To make
> > sb. think about sth.' --> 'to warn sb. of sth.' is a
> > straightforward and requires no leap of faith. The objection that
> > Schrijver's delabialisation should apply in *mon-éje/o- would
> > only be valid if Schrijver's rule were well established, which it
> > isn't; the evidence for it is weaker than the evidence for
> > <moneo:> being what everyone but you thinks it is. Actually it's
> > the proponents of the delabialising rule who should rethink it in
> > the light of <moneo:> (_and_ <mora>) rather than the other way
> > round. One could just as well insist that *moRH- > *maRH- and
> > reconstruct a laryngeal in <mare> and <manus>. There is no
> > independent evidence for such a thing either, but at least it
> > wouldn't contradict any generally accepted etymologies.
> >
> > Piotr
>
> You have started to talk again 'in general' when the specificty is needed here:
>
> IV. To resume the situation using the Facts here:
> -> Why "the evidence for [Schriver's Rule] is weaker"?
>
> 1. there is no laryngeal in mare (*mori)
>
> 2. there is no laryngeal in manus (*mon-)
>
> 3. mane:re could well be mon-eh1-
> (I have also showed you non-nil-grades in -eh1-)
>
> 4. mora contained a laryngeal despite your initial assertion
>
> 5. moni:le could well be in linked with Skt. man.i- ... (that shows the laryngeal too)
>
> etc..
>
> etc...
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> ==> So mone:re (< mon-'eye-) REMAINS THE SINGLE mo- EXCEPTION
>
> this situation needs 'To make [yourself] to think about sth.'
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Finally, based on what is a weak theory? Put down the arguments please....asserting without arguments means nothing...
>
> Or you are waiting first somebody else to write in a book 'Yes, is Ok', or 'NO it isn't'?
>
> So please be specific and talk about a specific issue if you see one
>
> Marius
>
>
> P.S.
> (No direct link with this but we address in the topic):
>
> I.
> a. Does the [gen.] gWneh2-s reflect CReH- and the [nom.] gWenh2- CeRH-?
>
> b. Did the 'son-in-law' forms in Latin, Baltic and Albanian shows 'at least a g^enh1- influence'?
>
> c. Could znuots, kno:dai, jna:ti- etc...to reflect g^noh1-t-, when all of us can see a CReH-/CeRH- pattern above? Yes, it can.
>
>
> II.
> Also this 'To make sb. think about sth.' could only work in a
> reflexive way 'To determine yourself to think about sth.'
> Honestly I cannot imagine how somebody can really determine
> somebody else -> to think...by maybe I have a handicap here ...
>
> In addition 'to warn', is something else, than 'to make sb. to
> think'
>
> On the other hand, what about:
> 'to mention, to remember' -> 'to warn'?
> it sound better isn't it?
>