--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2009-06-12 22:39, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Andrew, I'm sure now, that Schrijver will send us a PostCard with:
> >
> > 'Good Job, Guys! I will include this etymology, in the Second Edition of
> > my Book' ... :)
>
> Do you want to bet?
>
> Piotr
>
I know, when something fits or not or when is still 'in an unknown status' (for me, I mean).
I know also to appreciate when an argumentation is completely wrong, poor, medium, or 'quite a good one' or when I'm not able to qualify it.
(so I don't need, somebody else to help me ...on this)
The argumentation for *monh2-'eye was 'quite a good one'
The argumentation, I would say:
(the fact that it was link to me or to Andrew, is a detail...I have only made a joke with the PostCard: an argument is better or not so good, in itself, doesn't matter who propagate it )
and Yes, I could bet on this...there is no mistake in:
*mneh2- 'to mention, to remember' >> *mnoh2-'eye > monh2-'eye 'to warn'
(at least 'no mistake' in the current status of 'the PIE Model')
Rix has already agreed on this 'causative-iterative metathesis of CReH- roots' "On the Note 51"
You can check this at:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mox4cw6zY6kC&pg=PA375&dq=laryngeal+metathesis+winter#PPA380,M1
To come back:
Because the derivation monh2-'eye , remove now, the main remaining issue (mon-'eye) of Schrijver's Latin mo-/ma- Model: his Model will become the Reference One on this topic => not having from now-on any clear counter-example.
So, I'm sure that Schrijver's PostCard will come!
Marius