Re: passive, ingressive origins

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > *mon-h1 it¨®-
> > >
> > > *mon-h1 i-tó-
> > >
> > > that is.
> >
> > I suspected that. The really bad thing is the laryngeal which is
> > simply excluded by the fact that causatives show the working of
> > Brugmann's law: ma:náyati : janáyati; ma:nitá- : janitá-. As
> always it
> > does not hold 100%, very far from it in fact, but there is an
> > indisputable core of forms that do comply with the rule, so

there

> > cannot have been a laryngeal in the suffix initial.
>
> I can see that.
>
>
> Also the function
> > is bizarre: causative is a strengthening of transitivity, while
> > stative is rather the opposite.
> >
>
> Nonono. You shouldn't see this as derived from the stative, but as
> consisting of two words: a verbal stem in the instrumental (*-h1)
> and the verb *ye- "impel" in the present.
>
> Since I'll have to do without the laryngeal, I'll try:
>
> *mon éy-o-m-
> *mon éy-e-s-
> etc
> with *ey- as a thematic stem.
>
> The question is, is *mon "state of thinking(?)" possible as a

stem,

> or as an individual word (cf. *memor- "memory" and *memos-
> (?) "meat")? I was wondering that since *-(e)x/k- is an
> individuating (or collectivising) suffix did the stem before it

make

> sense alone? To individuate (or collectivise) something, that
> something would have to exist, at least as a an idea? In other
> words, is a 'toga' a piece of *tog (at least that would explain

the

> -o-, no matter how phonetically complicated PIE got, words had to
> have at least one consonant)?
>
> BTW does the f. and n. gen.pl., which is endingless in Russian,

have

> a trace of the original *-om in OCS?
>

Come to think of it, Brugmann's law prevents that solution. On the
other hand, applying that law means that since the Latin shows -o-
for the stem and since Sanskrit shows -a:- then the stem vowel must
be in an open syllable. That means that the last consonant of roots
in -...VC- will always belong to the suffix. That claim will wreck
any attempt to explain the causative suffix as originally an
independent word, which is must have been at some time (unless Adam
& Eve put the formation of the causative in an addendum to their
catalog of animal names). I therefore believe Brugmann's law applied
after the formation of causatives (which makes sense, since it's a
rule about Sanskrit, not PIE).


Torsten