--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-02-27 18:22, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > "Crow have wings and can fly, like storks, and this means that the
> > their common ancestor was a flier bird " (sic! :))
>
> No, it doesn't follow (even if it's true). You have to prove that
wings
> and other flight-related features in crows and stork are homologous.
Any wing on Earth has the same origin,
Any eye on Earth has the same pattern
For sure there was a Creator of all these
(but this in another topic)
I.
> > 0. There was a Common Language named PIE (-> so already from here
you
> > story with 'bats and birds' doesn't fit)
> >
> > 1. There were already in PIE verbal construction in -dH(e)h1-
this is
> > the starting point. -dH(e)h1- was also used for noun and
adjectival
> > constructions too.
>
> There were compounds with *dHeh1-, which is not the same
> as "constructions".
I think that you need to take a closer look on this.
PIE-verbal-constructions (in -dHeh1-) weren't PIE Compounds in
the 'common PIE sense'
Why?
Because the basic rule of a PIE Compound "A - B": is that the Main
Term (-> the Head Word in the Compound) is B not A :
Examples:
Skt. pi':tu: da:ru: 'a kind of (pine?) tree' => we have a Tree here
Dacian: Tamasi-dava 'the Dark/The Black Fortress' => we have a
Fortress here
Now if we take a look of a PIE form in -dHh1-
Lith. boyditi < *bHoih-dHh1- 'to scare'
is obvious that this Verbal Construction wasn't a PIE Compound
because the meaning has remained 'to scare' => so that one of *bHoih-
'to fear'
(honestly I'm not aware about a dHh1 > t for Baltic , so I will
continue to sustain this etymology thinking that dHh1 was reduced to
> dh1)
So -dH(e)h1- doesn't play the role of the HEAD Word in a supposed
Compound V-dH(e)h1-, but plays the role of a Modal Marker that only
adjusts the semantism of the Main Word (that remained mainly that one
of V)
This shows us that these PIE Verbal Constructions had already 'a
degree of grammaticalization', even in PIE times, that is another
argument (in my favour) regarding how old such constructions are
So you are wrong when you said: "There were compounds with *dHeh1-"
> > 2. There was already in PIE periphrastic verbal constructions that
> > used some <key> verbs like 'bHuh-' 'dHeh1-' etc...as a distinct
> > marker
>
> I don't think you can prove it. The fact that there are similar
> constructions in various languages is more likely due to
independent
> innovations, since the constructuiona are different in detail.
Please take a look again of what I said above: the fact that we have
something different than a simple compound is a very strong argument
that indicates us how old such constructions are.
> > 3. Reduplication was used already in PIE times for Morphological
> > Functionalities even quite for teh definition of Verbal Aspects
(so
> > the concept of 'morphological reduplication' was used already in
PIE)
>
> I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, but if you mean
simply
> that reduplication was a morphological device in PIE, I of course
agree.
Yes, is what I wanted to say: that reduplication was part , already
in PIE times in morphological constructions even regarding the
construction of different verbal aspects
III.
> > If you have another opinion on 1 to 3 is your turn now...
> >
> > Of course, there was no 'Weak-Preterite' in PIE that is a Later
> > Innovation of Germanic => but this construction is based on 1-3 :
> >
> > 1-3 was coagulated Only in Germanic
>
> You've lost me here, I'm afraid. What do you mean by "coagulated"?
I agree that "coagulated" is not an ortodox term here...:)
I wanted to say by 'coagulation' : that a periphrastic verbal
construction passed next to a grammaticalization stage.
To give an example here of such 'coagulation'
is the same process that generated the French <chanterai> from the
Latin <canta:re ha:beo:>
> > but the Dental Preterit (together
> > with other Germanic Construction) has appeared based on some
> > previous PIE periphrastic verbal constructions
>
> All the elements are inherited.
Is what I said too. But 'my elements' are all above: from 1 to 3
> The combination is new. Look here,
> Marius: why not present your own scenario of the origin of the
dental
> preterite?
> Piotr
Is what I tried to do Piotr from yesterday: but I didn't arrive yet
to Gothic
The Origin of the dental preterite was a PIE periphrastic verbal
construction in dHeh1-
Such constructions existed already in PIE times based on
1. - we have PIE Verbal construction in -dHeh1- already in PIE
Times
2. - these constructions are not simple PIE compounds they show us
a 'degree of grammaticalization'
3. - Such periphrastic verbal construction are largely present in
the PIE Derived Languages (see my examples from Sanksrit in the
previous mail but there are examples in Latin too etc...)
4. - we knows that the PIE used reduplication to construct verbal
aspects (but this will enter in equation later)
So This is the Origin.
Next, in an initial Phase:
The already existing PIE mechanism : that allowed to make such dHeh1-
verbal constructions 'was coagulated' in Proto-Germanic
(-> grammaticalized), like in French <chanterai> from the Latin
<canta:re ha:beo:>.
This happened first for a very limited number of Verbs (that arrived
to form a class only later) due to their very specific semantism
And I will come back and I will try to discuss on the next topic:
on the
"The PIE semantism of the Verbal Construction in dHeh1- "
in order to indicate what kind of verbs 'were affected first'
before to arrive to Gothic
Marius