Re: [tied] -hi, -mi

>
> > So "stative" served for durative and punctual? No language

known

> to me is incapable of making this distinction by one device or

another.

> >
>
> The hi-conjugation was once in use in both present and aorist,
> Jasanoff shows. As to what other derived tenses etc there might

have

> been, we can't tell. They're gone.
>
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> The normal plural in Englidh ends in - (e)s.
>
> If we see the word "justifies", should we assume it

represents "justify" with a plural subject?

No. And how is that relevant?

>
> The <h> in Hittite -hi represents at least two, possibly three

or even four kinds of *H from PIE. Identity of form within Hittite
would not necessarily indicate identity of origin - and sigmificance.

>

Aha.

> If -hi is truly used in both present (durative) and aorist

(punctual), then either the origin of each -hi is different in each
aspect - or - -hi does not signify anything and durative and
punctual are being marked in some other way.

>

Or it means that -hi signifies something that has nothing to do with
durative or punctual.

> Actually, I think we need to go over the basics: there are two

types of _action_, durative, which perists over a remarkable period
of time; and punctual, which persists over such a small period of
time that, for all purposes, it can be said not to perist, and is a
one-time event.

>
> Stative, on the other hand, characterizes the _result of an

action_ NOT an action itself. When we say "is red", we indicate a
persistence of a state rather than an action.

>
> The perfect originally represented the stative in PIE.
>
> To oppose aorist and present is technically incorrect; present

is a tense, aorist is an aspect. Aorist is opposed by progressive;
present is opposed by past and future.

>
> A stative can be past (was red), present (is red), or future

(will be red).

>
> A progressive can be past (was reading), present (is reading),

or future (will be reading).

>
> A "aorist" (punctual) can be past (struck), present (strikes),

or future (will strike).

>
> Now, Hittite does have two major manifestations of the "hi"

conjugation: -hi and -hu(n). We can characterize the first as
present tense (because of -i) and the second as past tense
(preterite) with -Ø» continued in the second person singular as -ti
(ta + i) and -ta.

>
> Now, I repeat to you again, how did Jasanoff "show" that -hi was

used in both present (presumably progressive) and aorist (presumably
punctual)?

>And what does either one of them have to do with "stative".

Nothing, as far as I can tell.

>
> Either you are mightily confused or Jasanoff is.

Or you can't be bothered to read his book.


Torsten