I just posted:
> in other words...
> present causative
> -----------------------
> *swe:p- *swo:p-ye-
> *legH-e- *logH-e-ye-
>
> ... doesn't this mean that you're contradicting the
> derivation of the thematic vowel from subjunctives?!
Just had an afterthought of my own. The reason why
I can't readily accept that *logH-e-ye- is just a
denominal from *logH-o- is because the vocalism
doesn't add up. We see the paradigmatic alternation
of *pod- with *ped- reflecting original accentuation
on and off the root respectively. So if this pattern
is ancient (and why wouldn't it be??), we'd expect
**legH-e-ye- or if possible, zerograding to
**lgH-e-ye- in the absence of accent.
So the preservation of an unaccented *o fights
against all odds, in my view.
What's more, it would seem strange that these
presumably **post-IE** thematic duratives, being
hypothetically reduced to nothing more than
subjunctives, would still manage to unmistakingly
reflect the presence or absence of thematic vowel in
their respective causative forms if indeed causatives
were ancient enough to be pushed back so far in time!
I can't imagine why newer "duratives" would associate
themselves with the causative forms of all things.
So if causatives are as ancient as we all expect
them to be... it would seem they are testimony to
the ancient character of thematic presents. I think
we still need a 'durative' theme in *-e- for the
earlier stages of pre-IE before Syncope.
That means there has to be another reason for the
pattern we see in Tocharian and Anatolian. Perhaps
there is an 'intermediate' system we aren't yet
considering for IE?
= gLeN
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com