Could someone illuminate for me how PGmc *suma and *sama(a) were derived?
Ie, I am assuming that they are both ultimately deriviative of PIE *sem-/*som-.
So, how are they derived from this, in terms of morphemes, and their meanings?
I have skimmed through both Ringe and Beekes. Excellent books, that I want to go through properly in the near future, but this question has been bugging me - the etymology at a later point in time was asked as part of a paper, and it annoyed me that I could not give a full explanation.
Would these two books be the best for getting a coherent understanding of theorised derivation processes and, in particular, PIE verbs? I've had some trouble wrapping my head around what can be said to be diachronic and what synchronic at times, fex when what processes were actively occurring, how salient the underlying analysis of x was, and the like.
Feel free to add sources/references/bibliographical details, I've read around a lot of related literature but not a lot on PIE qua PIE.
Many thanks.
etymology historical-linguistics proto-indo-european proto-germanic
asked Jan 2 at 3:04
takeru
161
New contributor
takeru is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Ie, I am assuming that they are both ultimately deriviative of PIE *sem-/*som-.
So, how are they derived from this, in terms of morphemes, and their meanings?
I have skimmed through both Ringe and Beekes. Excellent books, that I want to go through properly in the near future, but this question has been bugging me - the etymology at a later point in time was asked as part of a paper, and it annoyed me that I could not give a full explanation.
Would these two books be the best for getting a coherent understanding of theorised derivation processes and, in particular, PIE verbs? I've had some trouble wrapping my head around what can be said to be diachronic and what synchronic at times, fex when what processes were actively occurring, how salient the underlying analysis of x was, and the like.
Feel free to add sources/references/bibliographical details, I've read around a lot of related literature but not a lot on PIE qua PIE.
Many thanks.
etymology historical-linguistics proto-indo-european proto-germanic
asked Jan 2 at 3:04
takeru
161
New contributor
takeru is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Would you mind giving a derivative from each of your reconstructed PGmc roots? For example, I don't know a root *suma, but I do know *sumaz (> ME some); is that the root you're thinking of, or do you mean a separate one that I'm not familiar with?
– Draconis
2 days ago
add a comment |
Ie, I am assuming that they are both ultimately deriviative of PIE *sem-/*som-.
So, how are they derived from this, in terms of morphemes, and their meanings?
I have skimmed through both Ringe and Beekes. Excellent books, that I want to go through properly in the near future, but this question has been bugging me - the etymology at a later point in time was asked as part of a paper, and it annoyed me that I could not give a full explanation.
Would these two books be the best for getting a coherent understanding of theorised derivation processes and, in particular, PIE verbs? I've had some trouble wrapping my head around what can be said to be diachronic and what synchronic at times, fex when what processes were actively occurring, how salient the underlying analysis of x was, and the like.
Feel free to add sources/references/bibliographical details, I've read around a lot of related literature but not a lot on PIE qua PIE.
Many thanks.
etymology historical-linguistics proto-indo-european proto-germanic
asked Jan 2 at 3:04
takeru
161
New contributor
takeru is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Ie, I am assuming that they are both ultimately deriviative of PIE *sem-/*som-.
So, how are they derived from this, in terms of morphemes, and their meanings?
I have skimmed through both Ringe and Beekes. Excellent books, that I want to go through properly in the near future, but this question has been bugging me - the etymology at a later point in time was asked as part of a paper, and it annoyed me that I could not give a full explanation.
Would these two books be the best for getting a coherent understanding of theorised derivation processes and, in particular, PIE verbs? I've had some trouble wrapping my head around what can be said to be diachronic and what synchronic at times, fex when what processes were actively occurring, how salient the underlying analysis of x was, and the like.
Feel free to add sources/references/bibliographical details, I've read around a lot of related literature but not a lot on PIE qua PIE.
Many thanks.
etymology historical-linguistics proto-indo-european proto-germanic
etymology historical-linguistics proto-indo-european proto-germanic
asked Jan 2 at 3:04
takeru
161
New contributor
takeru is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Jan 2 at 3:04
takeru
161
New contributor
takeru is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Jan 2 at 3:04
takeru
161
New contributor
takeru is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Jan 2 at 3:04
takeru
161
asked Jan 2 at 3:04
takeru
161
161
New contributor
takeru is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
takeru is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
takeru is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Would you mind giving a derivative from each of your reconstructed PGmc roots? For example, I don't know a root *suma, but I do know *sumaz (> ME some); is that the root you're thinking of, or do you mean a separate one that I'm not familiar with?
– Draconis
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
Would you mind giving a derivative from each of your reconstructed PGmc roots? For example, I don't know a root *suma, but I do know *sumaz (> ME some); is that the root you're thinking of, or do you mean a separate one that I'm not familiar with?
– Draconis
2 days ago
1
1
Would you mind giving a derivative from each of your reconstructed PGmc roots? For example, I don't know a root *suma, but I do know *sumaz (> ME some); is that the root you're thinking of, or do you mean a separate one that I'm not familiar with?
– Draconis
2 days ago
Would you mind giving a derivative from each of your reconstructed PGmc roots? For example, I don't know a root *suma, but I do know *sumaz (> ME some); is that the root you're thinking of, or do you mean a separate one that I'm not familiar with?
– Draconis
2 days ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
They are indeed both from the same PIE root, which however is reconstructed with a laryngeal, *semH-.
PGmc *sama- "same" is a thematic derivative from the o-grade of this root, *somH-o-, found in many other IE languages (Gk. ὅμος, Skt. sama-).
PGmc *suma- "someone" is a thematic derivative from the zero grade of this root, *smH-o-, also with cognates e.g. Gk. ἁμο- "any".
ETA: presumably this *semH- is the same root as the *sem- "one" you mention; the *-H- appears to be a "root extension", which is basically a way of saying there's an extra consonant at the end of the root that we don't know how to explain.
Source: Kroonen, Proto-Germanic Dictionary.
answered 2 days ago
TKR
6,7811536
You can find that as PIE sem- "one, together" whence also semi-, syn- (as in symbol), simple (cp. Ger einfach "simple, easy" ein "one"+*fach* "-fold"), AGr hapax. Cp also swe-~sew- "self"; dʰyeh₂- "to notice" > sema "sign" (which I find hard to believe due to sem-; but cp to do); sek-~sekw "to cut" > sign (again, but cp note, mark); sed- "sit" > set (swe-+dheh1-?); *su-~sew- "juice" > to suck; su- "to be" (IIRC, but cp es~h1es, h1em, "I am"); stigma, to stick (PIE steyg, teg?). Could the laryngeal H come from prosody, stop after prefix?
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory, I'm not sure what this comment is getting at -- other than the first, none of these roots are related to the one in question (and even there the relationship of syn- is very doubtful). But you're right that the added laryngeal is somewhat mysterious, as such "root extensions" usually are.
– TKR
2 days ago
The senses "self" and "one, together" are perfectly comparable and I'd venture a guess that *w can can color *e to become *u. The other -ma words suggest there might be a suffix. the *-m may be from *med- "measure, sign somewhat stands out unless we also look at sigma. Taking up the note on note, mark, either *me-, se- or both may be roots meaning "cut", by analogy. e.g. via "to get ones cut, half, alloted destiny" (cp. most, mead Ger. maß?). muse has perhaps PIE *me "temper, will" suggested (cp. mad). Meadow has *h₂met- "to mow, reap”, englargement of *h₂meh₁-.
– vectory
2 days ago
where "to cut" may be whatchamacallit. "to mow, reap" is not a terribly good analogy and could be coincidence, because "cut" glosses are so frequent for other roots, we don't really need anymore :P And a very keen observer will note that semantic may contain *men- "to think".
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory All these supposed connections strike me as far too conjectural to be substantiable in any way, but it's probably not worth arguing about that; but note that *me-, *se- are not possible verbal roots by any theory of PIE root structure that I know of.
– TKR
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "312"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
takeru is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30108%2fcould-someone-illuminate-for-me-how-pgmc-suma-and-samaa-were-derived%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
They are indeed both from the same PIE root, which however is reconstructed with a laryngeal, *semH-.
PGmc *sama- "same" is a thematic derivative from the o-grade of this root, *somH-o-, found in many other IE languages (Gk. ὅμος, Skt. sama-).
PGmc *suma- "someone" is a thematic derivative from the zero grade of this root, *smH-o-, also with cognates e.g. Gk. ἁμο- "any".
ETA: presumably this *semH- is the same root as the *sem- "one" you mention; the *-H- appears to be a "root extension", which is basically a way of saying there's an extra consonant at the end of the root that we don't know how to explain.
Source: Kroonen, Proto-Germanic Dictionary.
answered 2 days ago
TKR
6,7811536
You can find that as PIE sem- "one, together" whence also semi-, syn- (as in symbol), simple (cp. Ger einfach "simple, easy" ein "one"+*fach* "-fold"), AGr hapax. Cp also swe-~sew- "self"; dʰyeh₂- "to notice" > sema "sign" (which I find hard to believe due to sem-; but cp to do); sek-~sekw "to cut" > sign (again, but cp note, mark); sed- "sit" > set (swe-+dheh1-?); *su-~sew- "juice" > to suck; su- "to be" (IIRC, but cp es~h1es, h1em, "I am"); stigma, to stick (PIE steyg, teg?). Could the laryngeal H come from prosody, stop after prefix?
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory, I'm not sure what this comment is getting at -- other than the first, none of these roots are related to the one in question (and even there the relationship of syn- is very doubtful). But you're right that the added laryngeal is somewhat mysterious, as such "root extensions" usually are.
– TKR
2 days ago
The senses "self" and "one, together" are perfectly comparable and I'd venture a guess that *w can can color *e to become *u. The other -ma words suggest there might be a suffix. the *-m may be from *med- "measure, sign somewhat stands out unless we also look at sigma. Taking up the note on note, mark, either *me-, se- or both may be roots meaning "cut", by analogy. e.g. via "to get ones cut, half, alloted destiny" (cp. most, mead Ger. maß?). muse has perhaps PIE *me "temper, will" suggested (cp. mad). Meadow has *h₂met- "to mow, reap”, englargement of *h₂meh₁-.
– vectory
2 days ago
where "to cut" may be whatchamacallit. "to mow, reap" is not a terribly good analogy and could be coincidence, because "cut" glosses are so frequent for other roots, we don't really need anymore :P And a very keen observer will note that semantic may contain *men- "to think".
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory All these supposed connections strike me as far too conjectural to be substantiable in any way, but it's probably not worth arguing about that; but note that *me-, *se- are not possible verbal roots by any theory of PIE root structure that I know of.
– TKR
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
They are indeed both from the same PIE root, which however is reconstructed with a laryngeal, *semH-.
PGmc *sama- "same" is a thematic derivative from the o-grade of this root, *somH-o-, found in many other IE languages (Gk. ὅμος, Skt. sama-).
PGmc *suma- "someone" is a thematic derivative from the zero grade of this root, *smH-o-, also with cognates e.g. Gk. ἁμο- "any".
ETA: presumably this *semH- is the same root as the *sem- "one" you mention; the *-H- appears to be a "root extension", which is basically a way of saying there's an extra consonant at the end of the root that we don't know how to explain.
Source: Kroonen, Proto-Germanic Dictionary.
answered 2 days ago
TKR
6,7811536
You can find that as PIE sem- "one, together" whence also semi-, syn- (as in symbol), simple (cp. Ger einfach "simple, easy" ein "one"+*fach* "-fold"), AGr hapax. Cp also swe-~sew- "self"; dʰyeh₂- "to notice" > sema "sign" (which I find hard to believe due to sem-; but cp to do); sek-~sekw "to cut" > sign (again, but cp note, mark); sed- "sit" > set (swe-+dheh1-?); *su-~sew- "juice" > to suck; su- "to be" (IIRC, but cp es~h1es, h1em, "I am"); stigma, to stick (PIE steyg, teg?). Could the laryngeal H come from prosody, stop after prefix?
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory, I'm not sure what this comment is getting at -- other than the first, none of these roots are related to the one in question (and even there the relationship of syn- is very doubtful). But you're right that the added laryngeal is somewhat mysterious, as such "root extensions" usually are.
– TKR
2 days ago
The senses "self" and "one, together" are perfectly comparable and I'd venture a guess that *w can can color *e to become *u. The other -ma words suggest there might be a suffix. the *-m may be from *med- "measure, sign somewhat stands out unless we also look at sigma. Taking up the note on note, mark, either *me-, se- or both may be roots meaning "cut", by analogy. e.g. via "to get ones cut, half, alloted destiny" (cp. most, mead Ger. maß?). muse has perhaps PIE *me "temper, will" suggested (cp. mad). Meadow has *h₂met- "to mow, reap”, englargement of *h₂meh₁-.
– vectory
2 days ago
where "to cut" may be whatchamacallit. "to mow, reap" is not a terribly good analogy and could be coincidence, because "cut" glosses are so frequent for other roots, we don't really need anymore :P And a very keen observer will note that semantic may contain *men- "to think".
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory All these supposed connections strike me as far too conjectural to be substantiable in any way, but it's probably not worth arguing about that; but note that *me-, *se- are not possible verbal roots by any theory of PIE root structure that I know of.
– TKR
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
They are indeed both from the same PIE root, which however is reconstructed with a laryngeal, *semH-.
PGmc *sama- "same" is a thematic derivative from the o-grade of this root, *somH-o-, found in many other IE languages (Gk. ὅμος, Skt. sama-).
PGmc *suma- "someone" is a thematic derivative from the zero grade of this root, *smH-o-, also with cognates e.g. Gk. ἁμο- "any".
ETA: presumably this *semH- is the same root as the *sem- "one" you mention; the *-H- appears to be a "root extension", which is basically a way of saying there's an extra consonant at the end of the root that we don't know how to explain.
Source: Kroonen, Proto-Germanic Dictionary.
answered 2 days ago
TKR
6,7811536
They are indeed both from the same PIE root, which however is reconstructed with a laryngeal, *semH-.
PGmc *sama- "same" is a thematic derivative from the o-grade of this root, *somH-o-, found in many other IE languages (Gk. ὅμος, Skt. sama-).
PGmc *suma- "someone" is a thematic derivative from the zero grade of this root, *smH-o-, also with cognates e.g. Gk. ἁμο- "any".
ETA: presumably this *semH- is the same root as the *sem- "one" you mention; the *-H- appears to be a "root extension", which is basically a way of saying there's an extra consonant at the end of the root that we don't know how to explain.
Source: Kroonen, Proto-Germanic Dictionary.
answered 2 days ago
TKR
6,7811536
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
TKR
6,7811536
answered 2 days ago
TKR
6,7811536
answered 2 days ago
TKR
6,7811536
6,7811536
You can find that as PIE sem- "one, together" whence also semi-, syn- (as in symbol), simple (cp. Ger einfach "simple, easy" ein "one"+*fach* "-fold"), AGr hapax. Cp also swe-~sew- "self"; dʰyeh₂- "to notice" > sema "sign" (which I find hard to believe due to sem-; but cp to do); sek-~sekw "to cut" > sign (again, but cp note, mark); sed- "sit" > set (swe-+dheh1-?); *su-~sew- "juice" > to suck; su- "to be" (IIRC, but cp es~h1es, h1em, "I am"); stigma, to stick (PIE steyg, teg?). Could the laryngeal H come from prosody, stop after prefix?
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory, I'm not sure what this comment is getting at -- other than the first, none of these roots are related to the one in question (and even there the relationship of syn- is very doubtful). But you're right that the added laryngeal is somewhat mysterious, as such "root extensions" usually are.
– TKR
2 days ago
The senses "self" and "one, together" are perfectly comparable and I'd venture a guess that *w can can color *e to become *u. The other -ma words suggest there might be a suffix. the *-m may be from *med- "measure, sign somewhat stands out unless we also look at sigma. Taking up the note on note, mark, either *me-, se- or both may be roots meaning "cut", by analogy. e.g. via "to get ones cut, half, alloted destiny" (cp. most, mead Ger. maß?). muse has perhaps PIE *me "temper, will" suggested (cp. mad). Meadow has *h₂met- "to mow, reap”, englargement of *h₂meh₁-.
– vectory
2 days ago
where "to cut" may be whatchamacallit. "to mow, reap" is not a terribly good analogy and could be coincidence, because "cut" glosses are so frequent for other roots, we don't really need anymore :P And a very keen observer will note that semantic may contain *men- "to think".
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory All these supposed connections strike me as far too conjectural to be substantiable in any way, but it's probably not worth arguing about that; but note that *me-, *se- are not possible verbal roots by any theory of PIE root structure that I know of.
– TKR
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
You can find that as PIE sem- "one, together" whence also semi-, syn- (as in symbol), simple (cp. Ger einfach "simple, easy" ein "one"+*fach* "-fold"), AGr hapax. Cp also swe-~sew- "self"; dʰyeh₂- "to notice" > sema "sign" (which I find hard to believe due to sem-; but cp to do); sek-~sekw "to cut" > sign (again, but cp note, mark); sed- "sit" > set (swe-+dheh1-?); *su-~sew- "juice" > to suck; su- "to be" (IIRC, but cp es~h1es, h1em, "I am"); stigma, to stick (PIE steyg, teg?). Could the laryngeal H come from prosody, stop after prefix?
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory, I'm not sure what this comment is getting at -- other than the first, none of these roots are related to the one in question (and even there the relationship of syn- is very doubtful). But you're right that the added laryngeal is somewhat mysterious, as such "root extensions" usually are.
– TKR
2 days ago
The senses "self" and "one, together" are perfectly comparable and I'd venture a guess that *w can can color *e to become *u. The other -ma words suggest there might be a suffix. the *-m may be from *med- "measure, sign somewhat stands out unless we also look at sigma. Taking up the note on note, mark, either *me-, se- or both may be roots meaning "cut", by analogy. e.g. via "to get ones cut, half, alloted destiny" (cp. most, mead Ger. maß?). muse has perhaps PIE *me "temper, will" suggested (cp. mad). Meadow has *h₂met- "to mow, reap”, englargement of *h₂meh₁-.
– vectory
2 days ago
where "to cut" may be whatchamacallit. "to mow, reap" is not a terribly good analogy and could be coincidence, because "cut" glosses are so frequent for other roots, we don't really need anymore :P And a very keen observer will note that semantic may contain *men- "to think".
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory All these supposed connections strike me as far too conjectural to be substantiable in any way, but it's probably not worth arguing about that; but note that *me-, *se- are not possible verbal roots by any theory of PIE root structure that I know of.
– TKR
2 days ago
You can find that as PIE sem- "one, together" whence also semi-, syn- (as in symbol), simple (cp. Ger einfach "simple, easy" ein "one"+*fach* "-fold"), AGr hapax. Cp also swe-~sew- "self"; dʰyeh₂- "to notice" > sema "sign" (which I find hard to believe due to sem-; but cp to do); sek-~sekw "to cut" > sign (again, but cp note, mark); sed- "sit" > set (swe-+dheh1-?); *su-~sew- "juice" > to suck; su- "to be" (IIRC, but cp es~h1es, h1em, "I am"); stigma, to stick (PIE steyg, teg?). Could the laryngeal H come from prosody, stop after prefix?
– vectory
2 days ago
You can find that as PIE sem- "one, together" whence also semi-, syn- (as in symbol), simple (cp. Ger einfach "simple, easy" ein "one"+*fach* "-fold"), AGr hapax. Cp also swe-~sew- "self"; dʰyeh₂- "to notice" > sema "sign" (which I find hard to believe due to sem-; but cp to do); sek-~sekw "to cut" > sign (again, but cp note, mark); sed- "sit" > set (swe-+dheh1-?); *su-~sew- "juice" > to suck; su- "to be" (IIRC, but cp es~h1es, h1em, "I am"); stigma, to stick (PIE steyg, teg?). Could the laryngeal H come from prosody, stop after prefix?
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory, I'm not sure what this comment is getting at -- other than the first, none of these roots are related to the one in question (and even there the relationship of syn- is very doubtful). But you're right that the added laryngeal is somewhat mysterious, as such "root extensions" usually are.
– TKR
2 days ago
@vectory, I'm not sure what this comment is getting at -- other than the first, none of these roots are related to the one in question (and even there the relationship of syn- is very doubtful). But you're right that the added laryngeal is somewhat mysterious, as such "root extensions" usually are.
– TKR
2 days ago
The senses "self" and "one, together" are perfectly comparable and I'd venture a guess that *w can can color *e to become *u. The other -ma words suggest there might be a suffix. the *-m may be from *med- "measure, sign somewhat stands out unless we also look at sigma. Taking up the note on note, mark, either *me-, se- or both may be roots meaning "cut", by analogy. e.g. via "to get ones cut, half, alloted destiny" (cp. most, mead Ger. maß?). muse has perhaps PIE *me "temper, will" suggested (cp. mad). Meadow has *h₂met- "to mow, reap”, englargement of *h₂meh₁-.
– vectory
2 days ago
The senses "self" and "one, together" are perfectly comparable and I'd venture a guess that *w can can color *e to become *u. The other -ma words suggest there might be a suffix. the *-m may be from *med- "measure, sign somewhat stands out unless we also look at sigma. Taking up the note on note, mark, either *me-, se- or both may be roots meaning "cut", by analogy. e.g. via "to get ones cut, half, alloted destiny" (cp. most, mead Ger. maß?). muse has perhaps PIE *me "temper, will" suggested (cp. mad). Meadow has *h₂met- "to mow, reap”, englargement of *h₂meh₁-.
– vectory
2 days ago
where "to cut" may be whatchamacallit. "to mow, reap" is not a terribly good analogy and could be coincidence, because "cut" glosses are so frequent for other roots, we don't really need anymore :P And a very keen observer will note that semantic may contain *men- "to think".
– vectory
2 days ago
where "to cut" may be whatchamacallit. "to mow, reap" is not a terribly good analogy and could be coincidence, because "cut" glosses are so frequent for other roots, we don't really need anymore :P And a very keen observer will note that semantic may contain *men- "to think".
– vectory
2 days ago
@vectory All these supposed connections strike me as far too conjectural to be substantiable in any way, but it's probably not worth arguing about that; but note that *me-, *se- are not possible verbal roots by any theory of PIE root structure that I know of.
– TKR
2 days ago
@vectory All these supposed connections strike me as far too conjectural to be substantiable in any way, but it's probably not worth arguing about that; but note that *me-, *se- are not possible verbal roots by any theory of PIE root structure that I know of.
– TKR
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
takeru is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
takeru is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
takeru is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
takeru is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Linguistics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30108%2fcould-someone-illuminate-for-me-how-pgmc-suma-and-samaa-were-derived%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Would you mind giving a derivative from each of your reconstructed PGmc roots? For example, I don't know a root *suma, but I do know *sumaz (> ME some); is that the root you're thinking of, or do you mean a separate one that I'm not familiar with?
– Draconis
2 days ago