tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post5239289537146310363..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: Suspicious IE roots, possibly deserving our scorn or maybe notGlen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-1987696682179603822010-03-17T16:49:05.490-05:002010-03-17T16:49:05.490-05:00That last sentence was ambiguous. Sorry.
I should...That last sentence was ambiguous. Sorry.<br /><br />I should restate: the <b>*s-</b> would have started 'disappearing' in native roots, along with the Semitic doublets, some time after <i>Syncope</i> while the verb <b>*steh₂-</b> was coined *before* <i>Syncope</i> and was eventually treated the same as the doublets as if there was an original root <b>**teh₂-</b>.<br /><br />I hope that&#Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-5085403859892620262010-03-17T16:42:07.845-05:002010-03-17T16:42:07.845-05:00Yes, you're right. For example, *steh₂- 't...Yes, you're right. For example, <b>*steh₂-</b> 'to stand' is <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=8sycj-dozxAC&pg=PA346&lpg=PA346&dq=%22The+s-less+variant+of%22+%22(s)teh2-+is+to+be+found+in%22&source=bl&ots=1PaS2Sw6yO&sig=E-6gVXS2OejMwi3abavMezSuRf4&hl=en&ei=wUmhS8zGCJKINPWw1bkM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-77847645972803747862010-03-17T11:32:54.405-05:002010-03-17T11:32:54.405-05:00"All the facts instead lead me to believe tha..."All the facts instead lead me to believe that *s- was a fossilized prefix in an entirely different language, namely Proto-Semitic, where it was productively used as a causative."<br /><br />But, surely, not ALL roots exhibiting the "Cheshire *s" are of Semitic origin!Casey Goransonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15515485425230479050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-81600913537463012942010-03-17T09:23:24.054-05:002010-03-17T09:23:24.054-05:00All of these solutions have been tried before and ...All of these solutions have been tried before and aren't very convincing to me.<br /><br />Prefixes are unlikely in SOV languages. Etruscan, for example, is a typical SOV language that has no prefixes at all. I've heard the idea of the "eliding <b>*-s</b>" before but I just find that to be one of the most desperate answers available. We also have to realize there's Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-45757467471946946862010-03-15T22:51:22.805-05:002010-03-15T22:51:22.805-05:00For some reason, I keep getting this feeling that ...For some reason, I keep getting this feeling that the mysterious *s may have actually had some kind of yet-unrecovered signifigance.<br />I know that there's been over a hundred years of research into it, but it seems so bizarre just to have a word-onset fricative that just appears at random.<br />It seems as though it's either due to some kind of sound change in which *s was deleted Casey Goransonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15515485425230479050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-5246559066157710712010-03-14T00:51:30.390-06:002010-03-14T00:51:30.390-06:00Phoenix,
Ethan Osten had expected me to explain O...Phoenix,<br /><br />Ethan Osten had expected me to explain Old English <i>steor</i> because he falsely assumed that all IEists explain it through <b>*tauro-</b> and that I somehow should too. Obviously, Douglas and Adams' don't which opens up even more questions than answers about these roots.<br /><br />Regardless of whether <b>*tauro-</b> is genuinely a PIE root or simply younger, it&#Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-60718083392839427132010-03-11T11:12:44.366-06:002010-03-11T11:12:44.366-06:00I find it very hard to believe that *tauro- and *s...I find it very hard to believe that *tauro- and *steuro- are unrelated, though their histories would be different.<br /><br />I would suggest that *tauro- is a late semitic loanword, while *steuro- is a more nativised and also older.<br /><br />Though I have absolutely no explanation why the *s- appears in *steuro-.<br /><br />It seems without discussion that *tauro- is a semitic loanword though.PhoeniXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627425696035152752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-43530753944236943322010-03-09T17:29:46.038-06:002010-03-09T17:29:46.038-06:00If you're truly curious, you could browse Doug...If you're truly curious, you could browse Douglas & Adams' book I had just cited and discover for yourself in two seconds the answer. They reconstruct both <b>*tauro-</b> and a separate root <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=pH7emh7sv50C&pg=PA513&dq=steuros&cd=4#v=onepage&q=steuros&f=false" rel="nofollow"><b>*steuro-</b></a>.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-87962373533286757542010-03-09T16:13:35.742-06:002010-03-09T16:13:35.742-06:00I'm actually in full agreement with you on a l...I'm actually in full agreement with you on a lot of these roots. I wonder, however; how do you explain the s mobile found on eg. OE <i>steor</i>, descended from *tauros? Leaving aside our recent discussions, an prothetic s- doesn't really make much sense here as an artifact of borrowing, so I'm curious.Ethan Ostenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07545534955995458629noreply@blogger.com