IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

I take the liberty to move this thread from Nostratic-L to Cybalist
where it belongs more properly as it has been progressing.

Jens

--- In Nostratic-L@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elmeras2000<mailto:jer@...>
> To: Nostratic-L@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nostratic-

L@yahoogroups.com>

> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:17 AM
> Subject: [Nostratic-L] Re: PIE *de:-, 'bind'
>
>
> --- In Nostratic-L@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nostratic-

L@yahoogroups.com>, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-

> language@...<mailto:language@...>...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, I think durative is not affected by tense. I am

writing, I

> was writing, I will be writing - these are all durative in my
> opinion. Do you disagree?
>
> No, that's of course what I meant to say. The *-i of the primary
> endings adds a present note to the unspecified secondary

endings. I

> still try to cling to the point that that's not the /i/ we were
> talking about, but that of the durativizing suffix *-ye/o-.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
> Well, we are still not quite together on this.
>
> I regard the *-i of the primary endings as this same formant, *-

y; durative rather than present. Present (or future or gnomic
present) is there by default when the augment is *e- (*?e, 'that')
is _not_ employed. But I know your view was Lehmann's, and I respect
him immensely.

The status of the *-i of the primary endings and that of the suffix
*-ye/o- of the durative aspect ("present-stem") marker is of course
not the same, and I can see no point in identifying them
etymologically. Their functions are not the same either: The *-ye/o-
is also present in the imperfect, which does not have present-tense
meaning; conversely, the *-i is never present in the imperfect
despite its durative meaning. Therefore, *-ye/o- is durative, and *-
i is present-tense, and the two should be kept as distinct as all
good IE-ists do.

> >
> > To 'band', the stative conveys 'what is wrapped around'; to

the

> passive participle, 'is wrapped around'. Stative and perfective

are

> very close.
> >
> > As for other roots, every root has its own peculiar
> requirements. My supposition would be that any root in *CVy is
> inherently durative; any root in *CVH is inherently stative.
>
> How many roots do you _know_ of the structure *CVy ? How

extensive a

> material did you consider when you made up your mind on this

point?

> A fast look in the root index of LIV shows that there is no such
> correlation: At least *H1ay- 'give', *dhgWhey- (*gWhTey-

) 'destroy',

> *k^ley- 'lean', *dwey- 'fear' are aoristic and have to be

expanded

> by appropriate morphematic material to express a durative

nuance.

> So, again, that was a wrong supposition.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> There are very few that even could be *CVy- as we both know. And

you are industriously trying to take those few away from me. But, I
would say, of those you mention above, *^kley-, 'lean', is a good
candidate as a durative extended stem of *k^el-, 'incline'.

>
> Semantically, it works, does it not? But, as I think I mentioned

many postings ago, and if not, I should have, these very early
duratives were lexicalized so that they were no longer 'felt' as
duratives. That made other means to express durative mandatory: some
reduplication, *-I, and a variety of others. The same same happened
to *CVw-, which was, I thing, originally frequentative, interpreted
as perfective.

Where do you actually find "*k^el- 'incline'"? This is supposed to
be an empirical science, not a game where you can just imagine
things. To keep my interest, you should now point to some actual
material that points in the direction you say: What observations
convinced you that this is as you say?

>
> When PIE started forming roots in *CVC, any *CVC that reflected

an earlier stem extension of a *CV root, would have been
lexicalized, and redefined as an aorist/injunctive.

And what is *that* statement based on?

> ***
>
>
> >
> > As for the last question, pick a specific root with *-mN,

and I

> will try to address it.
>
> Derivatives in -men- denote a specific manifestation of an

action,

> be it the action itself or its result. Of course what is so

named

> deserves the name also ten minutes later or the next day and so
> could be held to contain a "stative" component in its semantics.

It

> is your task to make it probable that there is a significant

need

> for a stative marker in the men-derivatives. You have ´made no
> attempt in that direction, and I can't see it.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Nor will I; I did not assert that *-men/*-mN was restricted to

statives.


Oh? Well, fair enough then. But then again, why would the -H1- of
*deH1-mn. 'band' be a stative marker, if all other forms of the root
also have the /H1/, and other men-formations just have the root
before the men-suffix without any predeliction for a stative marking?

> ***
>
> >
> > > Whitney lists di:ná? (V)eda. What it means I have no

idea.

> >
> > JER:
> > Neither do I. It is not in his grammar and, what is more, it

is

> not
> > in the Rigveda which has ditá- in perfect agreement with

Greek

> > detós. That tells us the old participle was *d&1-tó-s.
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick writes:
> >
> > Well, perhaps someone else on the list knows about di:ná.
>
>
> Okay, we don't have to give up so soon. Mayrhofer's Etym.Wb.

derives

> di:ná- 'scarce' from the root of dyáti 'part, separate', if not
> without reservation. The question is only if one of the other da:

(y)-

> roots has occasionally made its PPP like this instead of having

diná-

> or ditá-. There can be no doubt that di:ná- is NOT the

participle

> form that goes with da:(y)- 'bind', which forms ditá-. It

therefore

> has no place here.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Not sure I can agree. To me, it does not matter is di:ná is a *-

no participle or not, only that it is an example of a zero-grade of
*deHy-. Does Mayrhofer hazard a guess as to what it means?

The word means 'scarce', and that is not a guess. BTW what's the
problem *here*? You posit *diH- here, right? That means you have
both elements, /h/ and /y/, present in the original form, just as I
say these roots always do. This looks like a point of agreement
(except for the likely fact that the word does not belong to this
root, but to a different one of comparable structure).

> The only practical difference here is *da:Hy- vs. *de:Hy-.

Formally, it should make no difference. As for your 'occasional',
certainly it is possible. Among the gods is law; chaos among men.

> ***
>
>
> > > Somehow, I am not communicating very well. I am _not_
> banking on
> > metathesis.
> >
> > JER:
> > No, I am sure you did not know about these rules. Few do.

But

> the
> > embarrassing thing is that far-reaching rewritings of the
> linguistic
> > history is frequently undertaken by people who do not know

the

> > pertinent rules. And mostly one cannot even prove them

wrong,

> for they do
> > not understand what an argument is.
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick writes:
> >
> > I hope that is not I.
> >
> > If you think I am ever not acknowledging what you have

proved,

> please call special attention to it. I want to be logical more

than

> you know.
>
> You may soon need to show that.
>
> ***
> Patric writes:
>
> I will always be ready, willing, and I sincerely hope: able.
> ***
>
> > > Obviously, I would have hoped for a little clearer
> indication. I
> > understand your objections.
> >
> > JER:
> > Yes, you are down to *no* indication that the form on which

you

> are
> > basing it all has ever existed. Of course your hopes have

been

> > greater than that. Now that you have been told, what is your
> opinion
> > now?
> >
> > Jens
> >
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick writes:
> >
> > I cannot be certain that I am right since I cannot

definitively

> prove it. However, I do not think you have definitively proved

the

> opposing view either.
>
> I find it preposterous that you place these two theories on an

equal

> footing. You have done very little to prove your point, and not

a

> single point is even motivated by actual observation. This is

very

> different from what I am saying which is everywhere supported by
> actual material and a full explanation of what it shows. There

may

> be details lacking still, but that is mostly just because this

is an

> exchange of short mails and not of whole books. I have

familiarized

> myself with the material on which this is based, and you just

write

> sweeping statements claiming that everything is different from

what

> anybody really interested finds if he cares to look. I cannot

accept

> that comparison.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> With all due resppect, I think that characterization is

exaggerated.

> ***

In which direction?

>
> > It may be one of those things for which we simply do not have
> sufficient evidence to make an absolutely secure judgment either
> way. What do you think? Does that fairly describe it?
>
> It's nowhere close.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> 'Fraid you'd say that.

It's up to you to give a different imnpression if you want us to
have that. You can't just say that you wished there were evidence to
show that the alleged zero-grade alternants of *deH1y- point to *di-
and not to the *d&1y- you expect, you ought to point to such
evidence. And when informed that "-&y-" just never occurs
unambiguously in Indo-European, you ought to do better than insist
on some ambiguous reconstructions. The world has moved on since
Pokorny who certainly wrote a masterful book, and one that can still
be used today if only one knows how to adjust its information. We do
not do any services to good scholarship if we refuse to face the
very possibility that progress that has been achieved since the
publication of a handbook half a century old. Since I am the author
of some of the analyses and rules that are claimed to be instances
of real progress in the present matter I of course ought to show
some restraint in evaluating them. But I cannot accept that they are
being brushed aside to make way for alternatives that are based on
no serious evidence at all.

Jens