Re: [tied] Re: Semantic differentiation between thematic and athema

On 2006-07-19 00:32, Sean Whalen wrote:

>> If there were any truth in what you are saying, we
>> would expect numerous
>> Hittite verbs looking like acrostatic root stems but
>> otherwise related
>> to familiar simple thematics like *bHer-e/o-,
>> *h2ag^-e/o-, *weg^H-e/o-,
>> *h3reg^-e/o-, etc. There are none.
>
> The -hi verbs in Hittite aren't statives created
> from the perfect but direct from PIE present in e/o.
> The word ì (here, now) could join to the present.
>
> ax atx a ax ì atx ì a ì
> ax atx a axì atxì aì
> ax ax a axì atxì aì
> ax ax a axì atHxì aì
> ex ex e exì etHxì eì
> ax ax e axì etHxì eì
> ox ex e oxì etHxì eì
>
> t>0/_X#
> C>+aspir/_X
> a>e elsewhere
> e>a by x
> analogy (-om; -es, -etH-)

You haven't addressed my objection. The "simple thematic" presents are
not present in Hittite as a different type of verb with different
inflections. They are completely absent.

Piotr