Talk:instrumental

Someone doesn't understand that Latin "struere" is from *streu-, not *stere-. Obviously somebody is not closely paying attention to American Heritage Dictionary when it lists struere under the _extended_ form *streu-. Furthermore, the verb isn't even **stere- (!!). There's no such thing. The verb is correctly written *sterh1 and the American Heritage even shows this with a "schwa with subscript 1". However, the Laryngeal Theory has been proven since Hittite was discovered in the '30s so the very fact that people are not getting it after 75 years of completely ignored research shows that we're probably doomed as a species. --24.77.227.107 03:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that should be "h2", not "h1", the so-called a-colouring laryngeal. Gotta cover my ass, hehe. --24.77.227.107 03:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not check the Latin. I rolled it back because of the included nonsense definition by the same IP.  If you'd like to put back only the good stuff, be my guest.  I will ask a trusted contributor who works with Latin to review it, though.  &mdash;Dvortygirl 03:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. If (s)he knows the prehistory of Latin and Indo-European as well, (s)he'll be able to confirm with you that you just can't get "struere" from **stere- (which I said doesn't exist: it only can be *sterH- with a laryngeal *H). The infinitive ending in Latin is usually -êre, leaving *stru- as the root naturally. So that means that the IE root has to be *streu-, but it's true that it's likely an extended form of *sterH- because many Indo-European verbs are extended with -eu-. Ain't linguistics awesome? Yeah, I'm a geek --24.77.227.107 04:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)