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

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

> > *-He is my version of -eH1-. Familiar?
> > ***
>
> In the shape *-eH1-, yes. In other forms, not at all. What is

your

> personal "version" of the suffix based on? And I did not know

you

> meant that, for you had not said so. Why do you refer to the

facts

> by forms nobody else in the field can recognize?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> I have explained this before but I will explain it again.
>
> I do not believe that laryngeals had any coloring abilities.

But we very definitely observe that they did.

> The different long vowels (at least, originally long) that one

sees in conjunction with laryngeals in PIE is, in fact, the
Nostratic original vowel, preserved in its quality by being long.

But this has ceased to be a serious possibility long ago. We know
that very many of the long vowels of the attested languages are
laryngeal-based and contain a segmental reflex of the laryngeal. We
know that an underlying short /e/ was coloured by adjacent
laryngeals in PIE, whereas an originally long /e:/ was not.

> Only short vowels suffered the Ablaut reduction in PIE.

No, also underlyingly long vowels are reduced (to short full vowels)
when preceding the accent (there don't seem to be any that
originally followed the accent). The laryngeal sequences VH of
course just lose the vowel and have zero-grade H.

> Before you write how uninteresting that is, Professor Lehmann

was told of the idea, and expressed his interest in it, suggesting I
write a paper on it; and he would assist me in placing it. Shortly
thereafter, his wife died, and I have not had the heart to burden
him with more than he already has as a burden

You have not succeeded in showing me any good points about the idea.
It is not enough for me that somebody else has been interested.

> I thought you were in the picture on this when you saw me

indicating laryngeals by *H and showing the vowel I believe was
preserved from pre-PIE. The only thing of which I am not certain is
if there were two laryngeals: /?/ and /h/.

> ***.

I figured you might be operating on that assumption, but knowing how
wrong it is I could not really believe it. Now I know worse.

>
> > <snip>
> >
> > > ***
> > > Patrick wrote:
> > >
> > > Let me remind you. We discussed exhaustively whether

roots

> of
> > the form *CVy- showed up as duratives, and decided that the
> final *-
> > y in biliterals did not automatically make them durative.
> Remember
> > now?
> > > ***
> >
> > Not really, but there are *no* formal restrictions

concerning

> root
> > structure that would make a root predictably durative or
> punctual.
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick writes:
> >
> > We both know that present theory allows *-eye to form

durative

> stems of *CVC roots.
>
> No, that forms causatives, and from all kinds of roots.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> According to Beekes, that is not correct. On page 229, item c.

of Stem Formation, Suffix *ei/i. For example *mn-ei-, and
thematized *spék^-ie-.

"*mn-ei-" is a wrong analysis. There is no allomorph "-ei-". The
analysis is based on the Slavic stative se^d-e^-ti, prs. se^z^doN,
se^d-i-tU; Lith. se:d-é:-ti, sé:dz^iu, s:éd-i 'be seated'. That is
the IE stative in *-eH1-, prs. *-H1-yé/ó-. The Slavic full -i- is
not from an *-ei- of this type, but from the other i-verb types
where it arose put of either *-éy-e- of causative-iteratives or *-e-
yé- of denominatives. There are simply fewer types in Slavic than in
its prestages, so there has been some amount of reduction and
analogical standardization.

> Next Beekes mentions your causative in *-ei-e- but, in almost

the same breath, "-ei-e is also used to form non-causatives with
zero-grade in the root: PIE *luk-éie, "to shine"". On page 230, he
lists several more uses for *-ie- that are not causative.

> ***

You don't say? Well, I vaguely remember when I wrote about that.
These two types have been demonstrated to be but one original type.
There is a regular phonotactic alternation between -o- and zero in
the root vocalism of the non-causative *-éye- formation. The non-
causatives do not only have zero vocalism as Beekes may be read to
say, but also -o-, but only with certain specific root structures.
One example is Vedic rucáyate 'shines' from *luk-éye-tor; another is
dha:r-áya-ti 'holds, maintains' from *dhor-éye-ti. The thing is that
the root structure *lewk- did not contain (in my view: did not keep)
the -o- which appears in the root structure *dher-. Both are in
origin causative, and the stems *l(o)wk-éye- and *dhor-éye- did
mean 'make shine' and 'make hold' resp., but the use of the words in
the middle voice neutralized the causative meaning, so 'is made
shine' became just a way to say 'shines'. So it was originally the
middle dha:ráyate that meant 'is made hold, i.e. holds', but since
the middle voice meaning was also lost in this process the natural
form became the active dha:ráyati. Besides the alternating o/zero-
type without the causative meaning there was a renewed form with
constant -o- regardless of root structure which was used when the
causative was really meant, thus Vedic rocáyati 'causes to shine'
from *lowk-éye-ti. That must reflect a pre-PIE analogical renewal
of -o- to be used for real, i.e. pragmatic, causatives, while the
old form with -o- oin some root structures, zero in others, lived on
in the relic forms that had lost the causative meaning. The
complementary distribution of -a(:)- and zero (reflecting IE *-o-
and zero) was established by Stephanie Jamison for the Vedic aya-
verbs in 1983. The explanation via the middle voice was made by
Delbrück as early as 1888. I combined these observations and
expanded the -o-/zero analysis to the entirety of IE in my doctoral
thesis of 1989. So, in a way I have heard about this already.

> > I think you know, and are being a bit obtuse about it, that

I

> proposed that, at an earlier stage, some roots were simply *CV

so

> that adding *y would produce a durative stem of the form *CVy-.
> > ***
>
> And I asked you how you got that impression. I'm asking you

again

> now.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Do you mean "obtuse"?
>
> If so, it is because I have explained my reasoning behind this

before, and at length.

> ***

No, O obtuse one, I meant the impression that "adding *y [to a root
of the structure *CV] would produce a durative stem of the form *CVy-
". What is that funny statement based on? You seem very sure about
it, so it ought to be easy for you to write a list of impeccable
examples that are above any suspicion of being based on mere wishful
thinking. I'd like to see that, there must exist such a list if you
have any basis for what you are saying.

>
> > In this, the linguistic sign is just arbitrary. What *is*

your

> > point? If you are just finding occasion to say - for reasons

I

> don't
> > understand - that short roots ending in /y/ are not

necessarily

> > durative, you are of course right, but why in heaven's name
> should
> > they be?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Sorry we live in two different worlds. I do not believe in

anything "arbitrary" AT ALL. Every effect has a cause.

> ***

We simply have to accept "l'arbitraire du signe linguistique" for
most purposes. We cannot reconstruct ad infinitum.

>
> > > > Since you adamantly deny the possibility of statives

of

> the
> > form
> > > *CVH-, how would it be possible for you to say what
> inflections
> > > might have been used with it -- if it existed?
> >
> > > > ***
> > >
> > > A stative derivative is formed by means of the suffix *-

eH1-

> ,
> > zero-
> > > grade alternant *-H1-; its present stem is in *-H1-yé/ó-

,

> while
> > the
> > > aorist has *-éH1-. After a root-final laryngeal the
> laryngeal of
> > the
> > > present would not be detectable.
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick writes:
> >
> > Same remarks apply as above. Substitute *H for *y and

stative

> for durative.
> > ***
>
> And then what happens? How far above? Are you referring to your
> statement, "some roots were simply *CV so that adding *y would
> produce a durative stem of the form *CVy-", meaning that, by
> substitution, "some roots were simply *CV so that adding *H

would

> produce a stative stem of the form *CVH-"?
>
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> I thing he's got it!
> ***

So I have? But that's nonsense too! Therefore a last chance: Where
*do* you observe that there were well-motivated short roots of the
structure *CV which were expanded by *-y and thereby became
demonstrably durative, and when expanded by *-H became demonstrable
stative? Again, you have been insisting so much on this that it is
obviously a thing you feel you just know to be true, so I think it
is only fair to ask you to let us in on a list of clear and obvious
examples that can show us that what you say is indeed so and must be
accepted.

> What roots do you have in
> mind? Surely the three classical roots *dheH1- 'put', *deH3-

'give',

> *steH2- 'take a stand' are not stative, for they all form root
> aorists. The root *yeH2- 'go (by horse or vehicle)' is durative,

but

> not stative in any common use of this term, for its laryngeal is
> also present in non-durative forms of it, as the s-aorist *yé:H2-

s-

> /*yéH2-s-. Where do you really have material that allows you to
> segment the root-final laryngeal off and ascribe a stative force

to

> it? Are you doing an empirical study at all?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Jens, we have altready been through this once.
>
> We already looked at *CVy- and determined it was as liable to

form a root aorist as a root present.

And is a root *aorist* a "durative verb" all of a sudden? Sure, if
you permit yourself to use any technical term also also about the
opposite of what it was made to mean you can say anything and win
any debate, but then without gaining any genuine insight.

> I extrapolate that the same is true of *CVH-.
>
> *CVy- and *CVH- were lexicalized, and the original formants of

durative and stative were no longer felt as such.

I'd say they weren't, for what we observe is sometimes the opposite.
You may be right 50% of the time, but that will be so with anything
which you give only two possibilities. This just goes to show that
the root structure has nothing to do with the aspect properties of
the roots.

> It is in Egyptian and Sumerian that we have actual CV roots; and

this means that, at an earlier stage (pre-Nostratic), PIE is the
recipient of *CV roots + formants like *y, *H, *t, and *w.

Only if the elucidation of the connection between Egyptian and
Sumerian on one hand and IE on the other is so clear and safe that
such inferences are possible. I do not think that is anywhere near
the actual state of affairs.

> We know these formants are used after the later *CVC roots.
> ***

That does not make the phonemes they contain old markers of the same
when they occur in other places. None of the s's of English <boss>
is a genitive marker, none is a plural marker, none is the third-
person present marker. What *is* the kind of logic you are operating
by?

>
> > > ***
> > > Patrick wrote:
> > >
> > > Come on, Jens.
> > >
> > > Do you just want to obfuscate or do you truly not

understand

> > what I write?
> >
> > No, I can make no sense of it. That, however, does not
> necessarily
> > mean that I do not understand it, it could also be as
> nonsensical as
> > I see it.
> >
> > > I claimed that *CVH was originally a stative form, the
> durative
> > form of which would be *CVy-.
> > >
> > > What happens after *CVC where the final *C is not a
> laryngeal or
> > *y had nothing to do with the question.
> > > ***
> >
> > By what principle would CVH be stative, and CVy be durative?

Are

> > there other cases of such a principle? It is not a parameter
> > generally recognized in IE studies. Are you introducing it,

and,

> if
> > so, on what good basis?
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick writes:
> >
> > Whether *CVy- and *CVH- were still felt as duratives and
> statives in PIE (I guess we decided they probably were not), I
> claimed that in Nostratic they were: the product of a *CV root +
> stem formant. This was their origin.
> > ***
>
> Why make such a claim? And what is its relevance for the

analysis of

> forms of IE individual languages?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> If, after being lexcalized as regular *CVC- roots, none of the

former force of the formants was felt (and I cannot, at present,
prove that it was), then these originally CV+f. roots, now *CVC- are
neutral.

> ***

What is your basis for calling them "CV+f. roots" in the first
place? If you can't see any functional justification for such an
analysis, why do you make it at all? And why do you insist upon it?
And why do you give it priority over analyses operating within the
empirical scope of direct observations we *can* handle? I ought
perhaps to ask what the +f. means but I don't bother, I just take it
that you put in a morpheme boundary, and I'm asking you to motivate
it, indeed prove it.

> > > > > Very simply! *daHy- in zero grade: *H becomes

*i;

> *a
> > becomes
> > > Ø;
> > > > diy- before consonant become di:-, before vowel

becomes

> diy.
> > > > > ***
> > > JER:
> > > > That is not the way IE ablaut works.
> > > >
> > > > ***
> > > > Patrick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think it does, at least for Old Indian.
> > > > ***
> > >
> > > Where do you see that? You *postulate* it for di:ná-

under

> an
> > > unmotivated theory of how that may be derived, but what
> material
> > has
> > > shown you that this is the regular treatment "at least

for

> Old
> > > Indian"? I collected the entire material some years ago,

and

> I
> > do
> > > not have a single example like di:ná-. What have I

missed?

> >
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick writes:
> >
> > I do not know what material you collected but this pattern

is

> common enough --- if you can see it.
>
>
> > For example: IE *ge:y- (*geHy-) + -*to yield Old Indian
> gi:tá, 'sung'; _exactly parallel.
>
> No, give me one with following -n-.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Middle Persian bri:n-, 'determined', from *bhreHi-.
> ***

That's correct (in priciple, if not assuredly so for this particular
root), but that's after a sonant. The zero-grade sequence *CRHy- was
regularly metathesized to *CriH- in IE (just as *CRHw- became *CRuH-
). That is chapter 2 on the "ERu/Ru:" problem of my 1989 book. So we
do have Ved. pri:tá- 'loved' from *priH2-tó- by metathesis from
earlier *prH2y-tó-, zero-grade of *preH2y- 'love'. In di:ná- there
is no sonant preceding, so I do not see how that can regularly
reflect an alternant of a root of the structure *deHy-. It will
however be quite regular from a root of the shape *deyH-. The
etymological assignment of di:ná- is completely unsettled, so why
insist on a derivation that only makes a problem of it?

> The picture is different for -t-
> and -n-. Non-Aryan evidence shows *-&-to- where Indic has

either -i-

> ta- or -i:-ta-; with following sonant the form is consistently

with -

> i-. The Indic variant -i:-ta (not found in Iranian) can be

explained

> from *-&-to- also, i.e. as identical with -i-ta-, by simple
> levelling, in that -i-ta- has been adjusted to full-grade

alternants

> with -a:- taking over its length. There are four forms in -i:ta-

:

> dhi:tá- 'sucked', gi:tá- 'sung', pi:tá- 'drunk' (but Gk. potós),
> sphi:tá- 'thrived'; but ditá- 'bound' (Gk. detós), diná-

'divided'

> (dití- 'division', Gk. datéomai 'divide'), ON gin 'abyss', Gk.
> khatéo: 'want, be without', s'itá- (Lat. catus), Lat. po-
> situs 'placed' (and sinus 'bay'), Lat. satus 'sowed', OS
> sad 'satiated', sitá- 'bound', chitá- 'cut off'. These reflect

*dh&1-

> tó-, *g&2-tó-, *p&3-tó-, *sph&1-tó-, *d&1-tó-, *dH2i-nó- (*d&2-

tí-),

> *g^hH1i-nó-, *gh&1-tó-, *k^&3-tó-, *s&1-tó- (*sH1-nó-) *s&1-tó-,
> *s&2-tó-, *s&2-tó-, *sk^&2-tó-. The roots are *dheH1y- 'suck',
> *geH2y- 'sing', *peH3y- 'drink', *speH1y- 'thrive', *deH1y-

'bind',

> *deH2y- 'divide', *g^heH1y- 'yawn', *gheH1y- 'lack', *k^eH3y-
> 'hone', *seH1y- 'lag behind', *seH1y- 'sow', *seH2y- 'bind',

*seH2y-

> 'satiate', *sk^eH2y- 'cut off'. There are no examples with -i:-

no-.

> Other derivatives also showed *-&-t-, but *-(H)i- before

sonants.

>
>
> > Surely you noticed this word in your survey.
> > ***

What word? di:ná-? Not really, for it is not assignable to any known
root. It is not usefull evidence.

> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > ***
> > > > Patrick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, so laryngeals do not leave any traces in IE-

derived

> > > languages?
> > >
> > > Not after the laryngeals have vanished which is what I
> > understood
> > > your words "in IE-derived language" to refer to. If you
> count
> > > indirect evidence they may, in the right setting, leave

the

> > trace
> > > that the /y/ is vocalized and appears as [i].
> > >
> > > ***
> > > Patrick wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, I simply disagree.
> > >
> > > Laryngeals show up by lengthening the foregoing vowel.
> >
> > Not if a *consonant* precedes; that's the case in the forms

we

> were
> > talking about. I have done my utmost to make sense of your
> > statements, so far unsuccessfully.
> >
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick writes:
> >
> > Well, I really do appreciate your efforts to "make sense" of
> what I write.
>
> I would appreciate not having to do that.
>
> > I am sorry. I cannot make any sense of "Not if a consonant
> precedes".
>
> In the zero-grade there is no root vowel to lengthen. What were

you

> talking about? It is your task to state your case so that others

can

> understand what you are saying. It is as if you try to run away

from

> the argument by answering in general terms when cornered on a
> specific point. That brings us nowhere.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Since I wrote above that the root-vowel becomes Ø, you can be

assured I understand it.

> ***

But then you obviously don't understand yourself. If the root vowel
is lost, and laryngeals are shown to be present only by their
lengthening effect on preceding vowels, how can you insist that you
can see whether the laryngeal is present or not in a form that
begins with either *di- or *dHi-? I have gone to great lengths to
try and make some sense of your many categorical statements, but I
really fail here.

Jens