From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 470
Date: 2001-12-02
>In all, this is futile because you barely have ONE language toIn sum, the PIE adjectival suffix *-bho- has nothing to do with *-bhi.
>prove the inane assertion that "adjectival suffixes often become
>genitives". Apparently, they don't happen often enough for you
>to provide _clear_ examples.
>>>It's cute how you try to conceal important details withFor your information, the injunctive is formally identical to a past
>>>parentheses. Please stop writing "(a)" for all these roots.
>>
>>All the forms I gave are attested in the injunctive.
>
>So... you're asserting that these Sanskrit injunctive forms
>are directly inheirited from correlating *e-less IE forms. If not,
>then the injunctive is irrelevant to this discussion and /a-/
>remains.
>>>My point is that there could never be such a form as **bhr-óm.Neither is the root syllabic in the forms you said were acceptable to
>>
>>Utter nonsense. Have you really never heard of the injunctive?
>>Have you never heard of the Skt. Class VI thematic presents
>>tud-á-ti "he thrusts", pr.n-á-ti "he fills", etc. (with the root
>>in zero grade throughout, just as in the thematic root aorist
>>and the thematic s-aorist)?
>
>Have you never heard of the term "syllable"? Let's go over this
>simple problem: /tud-/ is syllabic (/u/ is a vowel) and /pr.n-/
>is syllabic (/r./ is a vowel) but *bhr- is not syllabic in
>**bhr-óm because *r is a CONSONANT.