Re: passive, ingressive origins

> > 1. Is there a PIE origin of the Sanskrit passive formation in -
> ya'-, added to the Sanskrit "unstrengthened" root (i.e. zero grade
> of *e plus resonant, e-grade of *e plus obstruent)? Or is this a
> Sanskrit innovation, and if so, what then is its origin?
>
> There is. The segment *-yé/ó- marks the durative aspect ("present")
> to a stem consisting of root + the stative suffix //-eH1-//. Without
> the durative marker this forms an aorist, continued in the Greek
> intransitive/passive aorist in -e:-n, -e:-s, -e: etc. When the
> present-marking suffix takes the accent the stative marker is
> reduced to zero-grade /-H1-/: IE prs. *bhudh-H1-yé-tor 'is waking
> up', aor. *bhudh-éH1-t 'woke up'.
>

Is it possible to see the -h1- as the 'essive/translative'
instrumental added to a root noun which is homophonous with the verbal
root?

Is it further possible to see the suffix -yé/ó- as a thematic version
of the root *ye- "impel, throw"?

(I know that verb's given as *yeh1-. I'll change it to *ye-h2-, hoping
that Greek 'ie:mi' is only Attic-Ionian, where the -h2- is the
factitive suffix, which turns up as -k- in Latin 'jacio:' *ye-h2-yo-m-i
(cf. *bhw-ah2- in 'facio:'. Thus the simple root is *ye-).


Torsten