Originally posted by Chakalarov
View Post
Wikipedia is also more accurate to attribute the -chthon idea to Pisani, not Babiniotis. In short it's only the mak, makos etymology that is strong. The rest is far from certain.
By the way this phrase
“However, modern research by Robert S.P. Beekes claims that the morphological analysis make- (root) + -dnos (suffix) is impossible in an Indo-European word”
seems extremely ridiculous when remembering that Indo-European is not an existing discovered language of the past, but a modern theoretical construction (of a hypothetical root language).
So first, you invent a language, then you invent a hundred of rules about it and then you decide, after a lot of thinking, “Makednos doesn’t seem to follow any of my rules”. Great!
Comment