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

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

> <snip>
> > > As for *yaH-, I would regard the stative as

meaning 'gone

> away' not
> > 'be in progress'; that would be, by my lights, durative,

hence

> present
> > or imperfect. The perfect would convey 'gone to and arrived

at'.

> > ***
>
> Yes, *yaH- is basically a durative verb.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> If you wan to disagree, fine. But why write "Yes" as if I agree

with you when I do not?

Sorry, I should have sensed that it was only your unclear English
style that enabled me to read some sense into your words.

> I do _not_ think *yaH was durative! I think it was stative.
> ***

And what, then, do you mean by that? Surely you do not mean it is a
perfectum tantum which it is not. Nor can you mean it is a suffixed
formation with the stative marker *-eH1-, for they have y-presents,
and ya:- has an athematic root present. And you cannot mean it is a
middle-voic everb without -t- in the 3sg (Oettinger's 'Stativ'), for
this is not generally used in the middle voice at all. It *is*
descriptively a verb that forms its durative aspect stem
(aka 'present' stem) without any addditional marking. But yoy don't
mean that, you say. So *do* you mean anything interesting?

> > I do not derive it from either 'bound' or 'parted' but

rather

> from 'liquid/liquify/disintegrate', *daH-, the inanimate _usage_

of

> animate _ *daH-, 'part'.
> > ***
>
> Are there animate and inanimate *verbs* in your grammar of IE?

How

> could *daH- create a form that ends up being Sanskrit di:ná-?

What

> was it in PIE? Especially, what is the segment /-i:-/ based on?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Short answer, yes. Animate verbs are actions which humans take;

inanimate verbs are actions taken upon non-humans.

>
> Very simply! *daHy- in zero grade: *H become *i; *a becomes Ø;

diy- before consonant become di:-, before vowel becomes diy.

> ***

That is not the way IE ablaut works.

>
> JER:
> > No, "non-vocalized laryngeal" means H. I am saying that a
> sequence of
> > laryngeal + /y/ is realized [Hi]. In the PIE form of this

the

> laryngeal is
> > preserved as a consonant.
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick writes:
> >
> > And how is [Hi] realized in IE?
> > ***
> As [hi], [xi] or [GWi] (GW being a voiced labiovelar fricative),
> depending on which laryngeal it is.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> And how is this, in turn, realized in IE-derived language?
> ***

Mostly as /i/.

Jens