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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, glen gordon <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
> Rob:
> > The fact that we have e-grade prefix and o-grade
> > root in the stative seems to suggest that the
> > reduplication pattern was formed during the
> > period of distinctive pitch accent.
>
> I don't think this suggests anything. The perfect
> reduplication can go back to MIE in my theory
> with the form *CeCáC- without problems.

Well, that's your theory. :)

> > Verbal reduplication suggests iterativity.
>
> Yes, it can but more generally (in both nouns and
> verbs) reduplication conveys plurality -- Plurality
> of objects or the plurality of an action.

I agree. Regarding nouns, however, it seems that reduplication is
more likely to be employed for plurality in languages that otherwise
had no morphological number distinctions (e.g. "fields and fields"
can easily become simply "fields"). Since IE seems to have had some
morphological number distinctions, it did not employ reduplication
for nominal plurality.

> > It is not hard to go from, say, "runs (and) runs"
> > to "runs around".
>
> Agreed.

That's why reduplicated verbs are always durative. :)

> > Basically, what I'm saying is that reduplication
> > became aligned with the stative conjugation once it
> > began to be reinterpreted as a perfect(ive) aspect.
>
> We agree! Except that I reconstruct the perfect
> reduplication back to IndoTyrrhenian. I don't think
> it can be recent because I can't see how else
> reduplication is applied to something that, on the
> IE level, doesn't seem to convey 'plurality' in any
> way, shape or form. The perfect is the resultant state
> of an action. It's by nature momentaneous and
> singular.

We see at least two (if not three) different occurrences of
reduplication in IE. The first (major) one is that of the i-
reduplication and the e-reduplication; the second is that of the
intensives where the entire root syllable is preserved. I think the
earlier reduplication is significantly older, since the
reduplication 'prefix' has been worn down to the initial consonant
and a vowel (either *e or *i). Furthermore, I wonder if i-
reduplication is from an earlier combination of participle/gerund
plus finite verb (e.g. awkward English "running, he runs").

The IE stative verbs are neither momentaneous nor singular. They
are, in effect, a third aspect along with durative and aorist.

> So the perfect reduplication must be much older than
> the present reduplication for that fact alone.
>
>
> On the result of *ber-as-:
> > In either case, syncope would reduce the form to
> > *bars-.
>
> No. You misapplied Syncope. In my theory, accented
> *e remains as it is. The first syllable is accented
> here. So it would only be fair to say that you'd
> expect **bers- if the added rule of lengthening
> hadn't applied.

I wasn't trying to apply your theory. Rather, I was applying my own.

- Rob