Thread:User talk:CodeCat/.../reply

I'm not a bro, for starters.

They may have been inherited from PIE, maybe not. The documentation of states that derivation from a root should never be considered inheritance, but rather just derivation. The reason is that roots aren't words; they are the basis for many words, rather than just one. You can think of them as similar to prefixes and suffixes. For a word to be considered inherited from another, it must have existed as the same word in the parent language. For this reason, is not considered inherited from. The reason is that the English word, like its Germanic ancestor, contains an extra -d- that was not present in the PIE word, and thus reflects a different word.

That said, in this particular case, De Vaan reconstructs an actual PIE word for this Latin verb, namely a verb which is derived (not inherited!) from the root given in the entries. That verb would have led to a 3rd conjugation verb, which is actually attested in Old Latin. At some point, the 3rd conjugation inflection was replaced by 2nd conjugation inflection. De Vaan says that the older verb fell out of use around the time of Vergilius, but the newer one introduced already in the time of Plautus (and is already found in Cato). So the replacement was gradual, taking a few centuries. I don't know if these should be considered separate verbs or not, and therefore whether is derived or inherited from.