--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> Even so, that does not fully explain why the imperfect has
> weak 1/2 plural and 1/2/3 dual forms (except in the case of
> -C(C) verbs), while the root aorist has so many full grade
> forms there.
I do not want to go into a detailed discussion of Jasanoff's book
since I have a plan to review it in a journal (I have had plans that
never came true, we'll see about this one). But the facts are
everybody's. I cannot really believe there was a different treatment
in verbs depending on whether the stem concerned was a present stem
or an aorist stem at the time the ablaut operated as a purely
phonetic process. I therefore see no problem with zero-grade forms
in root aorists dual and plural active or in the middle voice. I
find it slightly problematic that we do not always get the zero-
grade we would like to see, but, come one, we have seen levellings
before. And levellings will of course be sensitive to functional
considerations, so in this context it does not matter that
levellings do not take exactly the same course in aorists as they do
in presents. If Greek agrees with Sanskrit, it may just indicate
that the first steps of levelling of the ablaut of the root aorist
occurred before the dissolution of the protolanguage. I have no
problem accepting it even for a time preceding the split-off of
Anatolian, so if there is too much <te-> in 'say' in Hittite, I do
no object to an idea that it reflects a common levelling before the
languages split. Still, we would like to see some more to know that
other possibilities, including simple chance, are excluded.
Jens