Re: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 37932
Date: 2005-05-19

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

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

Jens:

 If the closest relatives of IE are Uralic, Altaic and Eskimo-Aleut,
shouldn't they then be included in such analyses?
 
 

 
<snip>

>   The type does not have that on a general basis. It generally has
the
>   function of adjectival abstracts, which would here be 'death' as
a
>   derivative from 'dead'. The process of forming nouns from
adjectives by
>   moving the accent to the initial is a living one throughout the
known
>   linguistic history of the older languages, as Gk.
thne:tós 'dead' =>
>   thánatos 'death'. In the prehistory fo the IE protolanguage, the
process
>   of course operated on the form of the adjective of the time:
when the
>   participle **mer-tó-s 'dead' (the prestage of PIE *mr.-tó-
s 'dead') had
>   reached the stage **mor-tó-s the derivation of a substantival
counterpart
>   created *mórto-s. The compound *n.´-mr.to-s 'immortal' must
contain the
>   noun in its second part (then with further weakening of the
vowel because
>   of the placing of the accent in the compound), cf. Gk. athánatos
>   'immortal' from 'not having death'. The simplex noun *mórtos
apparently
>   changed its meaning from 'death' to 'a mortal, a human being',
not by any
>   demonstrable function of the suffix *-to-, but by a simple whim
of
>   linguistic usage. It is up to you to demonstrate that *-to- has
the
>   alleged "future-prospective" function on anything resembling a
general
>   scale. An isolated and non-representative case does not do that.
>
>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   Here, I believe you are being a bit dogmatic.
>
>   If the languages I have used actually are related to PIE, that
should be taken into account for your analysis.

No, not for analyses applying to the immediate prehistory, unless
the testimony of the external material is of an unusual degree of
clarity and makes a very strong statement. I do not see that.
***
Patrick writes:
 
Did you not write about *-t as an agentive formant in another thread?
***
 
<snip>
 
 
<snip>

If the remarkable Indic forms with iraj- are related it must be a
laryngeal.
***
Patrick writes:
 
*H3o- as a prefix also contains a 'laryngeal'.
***
 
<snip>

 >   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   I believe that economy of effort is a fact of life and language,
too.
>
>   I will never believe hat *-y is added to a root for _no_ reason.
>   ***

Very good, we're in business.
 

<snip>