Re: [tied] primary endings

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

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen<mailto:tgpedersen@...>
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 6:59 AM
> Subject: [tied] primary endings
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> I proposed this some time ago, but no one has shot it down to my
> satisfaction:
>
> The *-i of the primary endings is not a hic-et-nunc particle,

but just

> a hic particle, ie. it is the locative case ending. That's

because

> what we think of as finite verbs in the secondary endings are

actually

> verbal nouns; the secondary endings *-m, *-s, *-t are 'at

me', 'there'

> (< *so), 'there' (< *to), respectively (now we know why the two

last

> ones are somtimes confused. The subordinate clauses, in which

the

> secondary endings appear, are therefore non-finite clauses with

verbal

> nouns (cf. Finno-Ugric languages).
>
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> I think that is a suggestion with some merit.
>
> I have speculated elsewhere that the perfect sentence was

equational:

>
> wood = cut thing (X) - OV - the wood has been cut (by X)
>

What does 'equational' mean?

> and conversely, the imperfect sentence, the verb was equational

with the ergative subject, expressed or not expressed:

>
> wood cutting(=X) - the wood is being cut (by X, the cutting

person)

>

do.

> Our familiar polarity between nomina actionis and nomina agentis.
>
>
> In Sumerian, the ergative subject has -e; if the transitive

action is imperfect, I.e. durative (marû), the verb has -e.

>
>
> Two comments on the balance.
>
> It may be that *-y _never_ signified durative per se but was

always purely just a differentiator based on the idea that a perfect
is primary, an imperfect secondary.

>

??

> That could mean that the *-I of primary endings is identical to

the *ey- of duratives; bpth are merely differentiating not
conveying 'present' or 'duration' explicitly.

>
> That could mean that in *CVy- roots, the *-y is just

differentiating a semantic nuance, e.g. inanimate activity vs.
animate activity: 'fall apart' vs. 'take apart'.

>

That semantic nuance is known as transitivity.

> This is probably the same formant with locative *-I.
>

??

> When we say "the Chicago (adj.) airport", "the airport of

Chicago", "the airport at Chicago", we are saying virtually the same
thing.

>

> The differentiator, *-y, forms adjectives.
>
> Verbal *-s, *-t, has the same ultimate origin as *so and *to.

*so is clan-member; *to is tribe-member.

Where did you get that from?

> Social distance is being equated with speech situation distance.

In this scheme, *so is second person and closer, hence can be
nominative; *to is third person and less close, hence non-nominative.

> Good thought, Torgen

Thank you, Nyra


Torsten