[tied] Re: IE thematic presents and the origin of their thematic vo

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> Rob wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> > wrote:
>
> > That was going to be my next point. :) The so-called tudáti-type
> > is then, in origin, nothing more than the subjunctive of a root
> > durative. However, there is again no formal distinction between
> > root duratives and root aorists, so their subjunctives should
> > also be formed identically.
>
> My gut feeling is that the durative/punctual contrast is not
> terribly fundamental in historical terms, just like the contrast of
> tense.

Well, it seems that it was a purely lexico-semantic contrast to begin
with.

> The inherently "present" or "aorist" value of a verb was a function
> of its meaning, so that it tended to be used in certain contexts,
> accompanied by certain adverbs, etc., but didn't have to be
> specially marked for aspect.

That's my point as well.

> There were, however, some secondary Aktionsart markers that
> gradually came to be used in the forming of "default" presents and
> aorists, replacing such aspectually ambiguous formations as root
> verbs and reduplications.

Yes. On the subject of reduplication, it seems that there were at
least two stages of the process in IE.

> The most important of them (apart from the special case of nasal
> presents) are the athematic *-s- of inchoative stems and the
> thematic *-jé/ó- that formed derived duratives.

I agree. It seems to me, however, that the latter is older than the
former, for it affects the accent. The question is, why doesn't
there seem to be an equally old aorist derivation?

Regarding the sigmatic aorist, you're saying that it was originally
inchoative in meaning? Could it be related to the neuter s-stems?

> If Jens is right about iterative *-sk^é/ó- being a combination of
> the two, we get a neat symmetrical system.

In phonological terms, there is nothing in IE that seems to
suggest /sj/ becoming /sk/, so I doubt that Jens is right.

> I'm not sure about the original function of root-vowel lengthening.
> The historically surviving "plain" Narten stems are all durative,
> but the same kind of alternation is found in the sigmatic aorist,
> so identically formed root aorists may have existed as well.

Yet there is a well-known phonological rule whereby (C)VCs(C)
sequences become (C)V:Cs(C) ones. Given that rule, the original
sigmatic aorist paradigm would seem to have been:

1sg *bhérsm
2sg *bhérss > *bhé:rs
3sg *bhérst > *bhé:rst
1pl *bhrsmés
2pl *bhrstés
3pl *bhérsnt

How common were the "plain" Narten stems in IE?

- Rob