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

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 37994
Date: 2005-05-22

Attachments :
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

 
>   ***
>   Patrick wrote:
>
>   I have explained this before but I will explain it again.
>
>   I do not believe that laryngeals had any coloring abilities.
Jens:
But we very definitely observe that they did.
 
***
Patrick writes:
 
Some of my views on this subject can be found at:
 
 
***
Patrick wrote:

>   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.
***
 
Jens:
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.
***
Patrick writes:
 
What they contain of the laryngeal is length.
 
Coloring laryngeals are an imaginative fabrication for PIE. They were made out of whole cloth to explain PIE *a:, *e:, and *o:.
 
I can predict the quality of the vowel in any PIE *CV: root by the semantics of the *CV syllable. Thus, *da:-, 'liquid, disintegrate', can only be *da:-, not *de:- ('whirling') nor *do:- ('lump, pile').
 
Why not explain why laryngeals can color short vowels but not long vowels?
 
If you see *e: in the root, you reconstruct *H1; if *a:, then *H2; if o:, then *H3. The determination of the laryngeal is totally circular.
***

>    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.
***
Patrick writes:
 
Sorry about my imprecision above.
 
I meant to indicate that only short vowels became subject to the *e/*o oscillation.
***
 
Patrick wrote:
>   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.
 
***
Patrick writes:
 
Try reading the short essay linked above.
 
But the proof of the pudding is that you cannot predict which color a laryngeal will have in any given root whether you know the semantics of the root or not.
 
I can --- in most cases.
***

>   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.
***
Patrick writes:
 
Into every life some rain must fall.
***

<snip>
 
>   >   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-.
Jens:
"*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.
***
Patrick writes:
 
You are contradicting yourself on the same screen shot.
 
Above, I posit a durative in *eye; and you say no, that forms causatives.
 
Then, in the paragraph imemdiately above, you show stative in *eH1-, present (that is durative in my book) as *H1-yé/ó. What is your *yé/ó if not my durative *eye?
 
And now I notice you have slipped in iterative. Iterative, does not mean 'doing several times', almost like durative?
 
***
 
***
Patrick wrote:
>   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.
>   ***
 
Jens:
 
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- in 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.
***
Patrick writes:
 
You can certainly assert that *leuk- should have had an *o in *luk-éye-, but asserting it is not proving it.
 
You have not proved that *luk-éye- was originally causative, only asserted it.
 
In my interperation of the middle voice, the translation would _not_ be 'is made hold' (which, by the way, is really not acceptable English for 'is made to hold') but rather 'causes one's self to hold', active rather than your shift to passive. Though it is not something one says every day, there is no reason to believe that the meaning of the middle voice inflection here was lost.
 
Then you write: "when the causative was really meant". What precisely do you think was "meant" when they used the, according to you, causative inflection in the earlier example??? Gosh, I thought it might have been the causative.Sleepy smiley emoticon
 
Let's see, now you write that when the causative was really, truly, cross-my-heart meant, the normally expected form with *o in the root is used. Where is your proof that it was not _always_ used, and so the form *luk-éye- could _not_ have been a causative.
***
 

<snip>

>   ***
>   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.
 
***
Patrick writes:
 
Who is the obtusor and who the obtusee? I have lost track.
 
If making a list of impeccable examples was so easy, it would already have been done by someone if not me.
 
The oldest and best preserved language we have that is related to PIE is Sumerian. Its durative is called the mâru-conjugation, in which the inflection for the third person singular of transitive verbs is -e, which represents Nostratic *-y. It is added to *CV and *CVC roots alike.
 
Nostratic *y has a limited number of uses: differentiation (motion) and durative.
 
If it can be showed to be used with PIE *CVC verbal roots as a durative, which it can, then presumably, it should also have been used in pre-Nostratic for *CV roots since we know from Sumerian that any given verbal root, without -e or reduplication, is punctual.
 
When PIE adopted the *CVC root as the standard format, previously formed verbs with durative stems like *CVy- from *CV were neutralized as to aspect.
 
In every PIE *CVC verbal root, the final *C has some meaning. It was not just _arbitrarily_ added to create a new morpheme. In most cases, we can identify the meaning of the second consonant, and understand the composition as a semantic whole.
***

>
>   >   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.
***
Patrick writes:
 
The definition of insanity is activity without rational purpose.
 
I think the idea of arbitrary signs is a confession of incompetence.
***
 
<snip>
 
>   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.
***
Patrick writes:
 
Short answer: Sumerian. See above.  For stative, the -a suffix in Sumerian which I discussed some time ago.
***

>   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 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.
 
 
***
Patrick writes:
 
You know very well (or you should) that I have never characterized an aorist as a durative.
 
I agree with your second statement. I do not do it, however.
***
 
 

>   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.
 
***
Patrick writes:
 
Thank God a dead horse does not feel pain.
***
 
>   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.
***
Patrick writes:
 
The connections between PIE and Sumeran and Egyptian/Arabic/Hebrew are so clear that the only good reason for not acknowledging them would be to practice anti-Semitism.
***

>   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 writes:
 
Ockham's Razor.
***
 
<snip>
 
 
>   >   ***
>   >   Patrick wrote:
>   >
>   >   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 wrote:
>
>   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.
***
Patrick writes:
 
The general principle that simple precedes comples. And the existence of CV roots in Egyptian and Sumerian.
 
All descended from Nostratic; ergo, at some point, the ancestor of PIE had CV verbal roots.
***
 

<snip> 
 
>   >   ***
>   >   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 principle, 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'.
 
***
Patrick writes:
 
I mistrust introducing metathesis unless there is absolutely no other alternative. Here, it is unnecessary. *prH(2)y-tó- should also yield pri:tá (*6(2) -> i; y -> i; i + i = i:).
 
 
  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?
***
Patrick writes:
 
di:ná from *daHy- makes perfect semantic sense.
***
 

>    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.
***
Patrick writes:
 
I disagree.
***
 
<snip>

>   ***
>   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.
 
***
Patrick writes:
 
You must be a wonderful cook to be able to mix so many things together.
 
In full-grade, laryngeals are detectable by lengthening of the root-vowel; in zero-grade, by whatever the appropriate reflexes of *6 are for the particular language in question; for Old Idnian, -i-.
Patrick
***
 
 
Jens 




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/GP4qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/