[SPAM] [SPAM] [SPAM] [tied] Re: Latin /a/ after labials, IE *mori

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2009-06-13 17:16, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE:
> > - BECAUSE THEY WERE RESHAPED TO -a:re:
> > ara:re 'for sure' I would say..
> > cala:re 'for sure' too (we have Umbrian karetu)
> > etc...
> >
> > So we have many RESHAPINGS HERE....
>
> This is just another red herring. We are not discussing the origin of
> the first conjugation but the form of <moneo:/mone:re>. You haven't
> shown even one single case in which a causative/iterative in *-h2- +
> -eje/o- ends up in the second conjugation in Latin. Shall I multiply
> counterexamples? We have *woth2-aje/o- > OLat. voto: > CLat.
> veto:/vetui. Of course I realise that you are immune to argumentation
> and since no-one else seems to be interested in this thread, I rest my
> case here. EOT for the second and last time.
> Piotr

1. Piotr, to make me 'immune to the argumentation' after all my postings here, and especially when you were COMPLETELY WRONG on the first discussed TOPIC here, is NOT FAIR:

Tee First Discussed Topic was:
- <<that a menh2- type-II Root is not possible from a mneh2- root>> ==> this was your assertion, isn't it? ('based on Raimo's book' etc..)

I have showed you that this is possible.

SO YOUR WERE WRONG HERE: LET'S BE EXPLICIT ABOUT THIS.

Sorry to tell you: but I didn't see any feedback from you saying: "I was wrong"....why is so difficult to recognize this?



2. Now, you have switched, RECENTLY, to a second argumentation saying that "a causative/iterative in *-h2- + -eje/o- always ends up in the first conjugation in Latin"

a) The First Question here was/is how do you Know FOR SURE that :

tona:re
sona:re
vota:re
doma:re

are causative-iterative -eye- formations?

Because otherwise you have a circular argumentation, here.

Marius