A question about Greek or Latin

proto-language proto-language at email.msn.com
Thu Mar 29 23:38:59 UTC 2001

Dear Peter and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: "petegray" <petegray at btinternet.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 2:38 AM

>> What would you say to the alternate alternate explanation that the
>> causative formant is merely an agglutinatated verb *[h1]ey-e-

> The suggestion that it might be causes me no problem;  the assertion that it
> is so would need proof.

> I'm happy with the idea that all suffixes began life as independent
> morphemes way back in early Ur-pre-proto-pre-PIE.  I think you mean more
> than that, so we would need to find firm evidence for:
>   (a) the existence of such a verb
>   (b) the use of such a verb as a causative
>   (c) the acceptance of this explanation as better than any alternative.

> What about the "going" root Pokorny 296 *ei / *ia:  ?


Actually, is it not pretty well-established that this formant is used in
present tenses?


PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ec
at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim
meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)

More information about the Indo-european mailing list