From: stlatos
Message: 67752
Date: 2011-06-13
>You are wrong about your ideas of PIE cp. There's nothing wrong w what I wrote, and, even if you were right about part of it, it could easily be from * wedH-n.d*-xW-n.o+ with dis. n.>0-n. (if you believe attestation is enough to prove PIE * wedH-n.o+ 'a leading').
> W dniu 2011-06-12 21:50, stlatos pisze:
>
> > So you are saying the word for 'wedding gift' did not come from
> > 'wed+gift'?
>
> A term like that does not have to be a compound spelling out its meaning
> in terms of simpler concepts. And supposing, for the sake of the
> argument, that it were such a compound, the first member ought to be a
> noun meaning 'wedding', or perhaps a case form thereof. A mere "root
> equation" is not enough. What's your *wedH- supposed to be? It's the
> quotation form of a verb root whose primary meaning is 'to lead'. Even
> if there were a root noun derived from it (and no such word is
> attested), its PIE compositional form would not be *wedH-. Ablauting
> stems take the zero grade in this position, even if accented.
> TheI ignored nothing. I wrote n.ó not nó; if you don't agree with what I've written before to defend my explanation, and describe changes in n., say so, but don't say I've ignored it. In Gmc many words became n-stems, having nothing to do w PIE.
> reconstructions I suggest are consistent with whwt we know of PIE
> word-formation, they yield the attested reflexes straightforwardly, and
> they take into account things like the fact (ignored by you) that the
> Germanic noun is a consonantal *-mon- stem (not a thematic formation in
> *-nó-!).