@RegDwigнt What ticks me off is that the accepted answer is garblese and has been so for nigh unto three years now, and has accumulated seven upvotes but no ameliorative edits. Lazy fishfarts one and all, or at least one and many for values of many equal to 7.
Interesting glitch: if I click on "an edit has been made to this answer, click to reload", the blue migration and protection notices vanish from the question.
ALso I have this sentence:
...the experience and knowledge gained will be helpful in my career as
a neuropathologist.
Is the "as" here ok? It somehow does not sound right to me. Obviously I want to say that it will be helpful to me, during my career in neuropathology.
It’s like the shared 1st/2nd/3rd-person pronominal elements of m-, t-, s- that have come down to many modern tongues from time immemorial. It is an element no longer analysable, like drink > drench, stink > stench using palatalization to create an active version of something.
Ok, obscure origin not cryptic phonology. Gotcher.
It is however curious that both t- and -t have second-person aspects to them.
Tuus/etc/etc, te, thou, thee and wit, yit etc. Betwixt, betwain, twain, two, twin, twine.
I need to have tasted of JBJ’s fine course of PIE à la mode.
Alas, I have not.
Notice how in fact the modern pronoun it comes to us from the third-person dual.
And that there was a distinction between 1pl gen ure (ours) and 1dl gen uncer (unser?).
I don’t know anything about OHG or OD, but ON had this sort of thing, too.
Gothic kept them, I believe.
I’m trying to think of some New Testament passage which would have we two that I could look up in the Gothic Bible.
Well, or we both.
Ah, that works better. Ok.
Ambo < ambus in the Vulgate.
> Quoniam per ipsum habemus accessum ambo in uno Spiritu ad Patrem.
That’s Ephesians 2:18. Now I can look it up in the Gothic Bible. Yay!
Incidentally, it is funny how the endings are -m, -s, -t, while the pronominal stems are m(e)-, t(u)- (not sure I would count s-, as there are and were many competing pronominal stems of the third person, including t-).
@tchrist: Got another look. Pretty sure it's a northern flicker, but with puffed-out head and neck feathers. Body is tan and gray with darker spotting.
Oh. Yeah. There are all sorts of slang things for people from the Netherlands. Northern flicker, cheese roller, dingleberry, orange crush, those guys over there, etc etc
Whateverize is always a word, by definition
Yes, of course versionize is “a real word”. It has to be.
This is because ‑ize is a productive suffix in English used to derive a verb from some non-verb word, any word derived by combining an existing word with it is automatically also a “word”. ...
So, about those pesky Proto-Germanic duals … like everything else dual, they’re a pain in the back side. Truth be told, I don’t know if the dental suffix is just the remnants of a contraction with the numeral two, but it would make sense if it is: 1) there is no dental in the PIE dual pronouns; 2) there are d-initial suffixes in some Baltic dual pronouns (Lith. vedù ‘we two’).
The 2du ġyt is definitely not just ye + 2sg ending -t, though—it’s the same t as in wit.
@tchrist No no, singular. It is originally hit (< χit), the accusative of the same pronominal base that gives he. The t there is common to all anaphoric third person pronouns, originally only in the neuter, but often spreading to the masculine (and sometimes the feminine), as well. (Underlyingly there also in Greek ὁ and το, though of course it’s been lost there.)
@JanusBahsJacquet So is there a connection between both, beides, ambus, amphi-?
Do you think a parallel Carry he who dies in battle over land and sea back to his native land is a parallel and also justified construction? — tchrist45 secs ago
@tchrist Certainly between ambus and αμφί-, and between both and beide. Probably not between the two groups, though—the connection with ambus/αμφί in English would probably have to be the preposition by.
@Cerb No no, that’s exactly what I think they aren’t. Ambus/ambō and αμφος are usually taken to be formed on the basis of the preposition *h2mbhi (> Lat. ambi, Gk. αμφί, Germ. umb > German um, etc.), meaning ‘about, around, on either side of’.
There seems to be a similar, but probably distinct, root *bʰo- or *bʰa-, which is the one that means ‘both’. It is very similar to the *bh(e)i- root that underlies the plural case ending *-bhi, but if it is indeed the same originally, they must have developed in some odd ways to yield *bʰo- and *bʰi-, respectively.
I realize you answerized and your contribution was well referencized, but I can't help but wonderfy whether a word must be well recognized to be legitimized or any string of letters -- properly morphologized, of course -- can be characterized as English. — Dan Bron17 mins ago
@DanBron As lexical legitimization is ipso facto a matter of law — Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi — it is common knowledge that while freely neologued ad libitum, all newly minted words must needs first be legally sanctioned by the regal imprimatur of the Royal Academy of the English Language’s leal lexicographers as sole custodians of a word’s lasting legitimature ere its legal entry into layman lexicons can be conscionably contemplated let alone condoned. — tchrist1 min ago
@tchrist Don’t know about cool (it was rather hot most of the time), but I did at least manage to pick up a bit more Català this time around than last time around. And find out that I just simply cannot pronounce it. Why any language would pronounce unstressed a as e and e as a is beyond me.
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Good point. And actually, the past is in front of, and the future is behind, as well (think 前天 and 后天). Never thought about that (either).
ALso I have this sentence:
...the experience and knowledge gained will be helpful in my career as
a neuropathologist.
Is the "as" here ok? It somehow does not sound right to me. Obviously I want to say that it will be helpful to me, during my career in neuropathology.
Whateverize is always a word, by definition
Yes, of course versionize is “a real word”. It has to be.
This is because ‑ize is a productive suffix in English used to derive a verb from some non-verb word, any word derived by combining an existing word with it is automatically also a “word”. ...
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…