>If you agree that the stems I quoted ARE consonantal (aka >athematic),
>where the heck did I err?
In redundantly redundant redundancy that you have repeated in an
arguement below concerning your "polymorphic" verbs. :(
The IE verbs that we reconstruct such as *ed-, *es-, *ei-, *ghWen- etc. are
obviously well established roots... in COMMON IE. However, Semitic wouldn't
have interacted with Common IE. It interacted with "Old" to "Middle" IE
according to the changes I list on the site, perhaps circa 6000-5000 BCE. By
the time Common IE developed, the above verbs would be fully accepted and
treated normally in every sense of the word just as we don't think anything
bizarre about the verb "render" even though it's French /rendre/.
We've added tonnes of native affixes to it after less than a millenium (cf.
"render-ing", "un-render", "render-ed", "render-er", etc) so your arguement
to justify "basic verbs" as completely native because of their many
derivatives doesn't hold here. Nor can we automatically dismiss verbs like
*es- or *ed- as being loaned simply because they are so minimal. IE verbs
generally are CVC anyway and are all quite basic-looking when compared to
English or Russian verbs.
As for *es- specifically, it is a native verb by common IE but hardly a very
necessary verb nor ancient. There can be no archaic Steppe form for "to be"
and so this verb is innovative in some way or another. It couldn't have
originally meant "to be" either.
Also, I'm not trying to sweeten anything. Everything is deductive reasoning.
Maybe we should go step by step this time:
Most will agree that the 3ps *-et and 3ppl *-�nt are related by a suffix *-t
which is nothing more than an attached demonstrative. We don't find *-t
anywhere else in Nostratic and certainly not in Uralic or Altaic. Taking *-t
away we are immediately left with *-e/*-�n and this means that the root of a
thematic verb is identical with the third person singular. These suffixes
ARE attested in other Nostratic languages including Sumerian (-e/-ene) which
is exactly the forms we arrive at after applying the penultimate accent rule
backward in time to explain other grammatical links. The forms *-e/*-�n are
quite frankly proven by other occasional plural pronominal suffixes in *n
(Gr -men, H -weni/-teni). They are easily explainable as a faulty
misinterpretation of archaic 3ppl *-�n as 3ps *-e plus a non-existant plural
marker **-n that would later spread to all plural endings. There is no other
conclusion.
Since the thematic vowel doesn't have any strong meaning, its use must have
been less grammatical and more functional such as to seperate two consonants
in situations that would otherwise produce a syllabic catrastophe, such as
*-CC when adding singular Old IE suffixes like *-m "I", *-c "you", etc. We
find thematic vowels naturally used in this exact same way in other Steppe
languages.
However the vowel is not needed in the plural for suffixes like Old IE *-mec
"we", *-tec "you" or *-ene "they" since their addition to a CVC verb root
would still obey syllabic constraints. Thus the third person singular MUST
have been equated with the root itself so that the terminating 3ps *-e would
then spread throughout the conjugation to produce *-e-mec "we", etc.
This is not to sweeten the pot but rather is solid reasoning. The objective
(imperfect) third person was marked with *-e to distinguish it from the
non-terminating subjective (perfect) from ancient times.
The next step is to ask ourselves how it might be that a non-terminating
objective (imperfect with later *-t) might arise. First, we must conclude
that the athematic verbs were created AFTER the spread of the 3ps *-e.
A possible explanation is foreign influence since we know that IE was
affected by Semitic in some form or fashion at an early date. It would seem
that some of these Semitic verbs may not have been taken up right and a
"thematic" vowel was not heard by the na(t)ive IE speakers who
understandably didn't know as much about Semitic grammar. They would assume
that the given Semitic verbs were the root and third person singular because
of the way Old/Middle IE operates, thus automatically producing an athematic
class without 3ps *-e and subsequently, without thematic vowel.
Remember "render" which is treated as the root of the verb in English even
though it is in fact an infinitive in French (rendre -> il rend).
Weird things can and do happen.
This hypothesis even appears to be supportable based on a peculiarity about
Semitic verbs. You see, biliteral verbs (verbs with two consonants in the
root) are yucky in Semitic. Semitic fights against them by making the root
triliteral. This is accomplished in several ways, like doubling the final
consonant or adding a *w- prefix.
The *w- prefix is a matter that should be looked into because we are back to
the weird IE root *weid- which as I've said cannot ultimately be a native
verb since there is no phonological rule that could produce a verb root with
*-eiC from Steppe.
The IE verb *weid- is found in Semitic like I said before apparently
originally as a biliteral root *d-` in comparison with Hebrew (/`/=ayin).
The form in Akkadian is /idu:/ which I presume is from a Semitic infinitive
*ida:`u. Now of course, it seems to lack the "w"... but it IS a biliteral
root. When I visited the UofM library yesterday amongst the scanty
selection, I was still able to find tasty reconstructions like *us^aidi` "to
cause to know" (Akk /use:di:/) with the *s^-causitive that we even find in
Egyptian. The book is called "Introduction to Semitic Languages - Text
Specimen and Grammatical Sketches" by Gotthelf Berstraesser, 1983.
As well it states on page 16, "Already in Proto-Semitic the inflection of
the I w verbs exhibits the alternation between biliteral forms - imperative
*Tib (Akk s^ib, Heb s^eb_, Am teb_) 'sit', prefix conjugation *yaTib
(u:s^ib, ye:s^eb_, yetteb_), verbal noun *Tibtu (s^ubtu, s^�b_et_, teb_ta:)
and triliteral ones (from *wTb). - "
I really like the last part (teehee) that might help explain some of the odd
IE verbs like *weid- as well as perhaps *wes- "to live" beside *es- "to be".
On the verb *leikW-, Piotr states:
>Neither the labiovelar nor the nasal infix are that important here.
The labiovelar is important but you have a losing case. Perhaps Akkadian
/ala:ku/ "to go" will interest you. Not only is the verb attested with the
same meaning but it undergoes an irregular conjugation becoming /illik/ in
the third person present with /-i-/ just as we find in IE! We also don't
find *l very much in IE either due to a couple of factors thus it's
unnativeness is all the more blunt...
Unfortunately I don't have the direct reconstructions available for the
Semitic paradigm, although I know that these Semitic verbs are well attested
throughout the group. Here's a conjecture, and I add that I'm unsure what
precise Semitic form I'm reconstructing yet but this is based on the effects
in Middle IE. Enjoy.
Semitic Middle IE 3ps
to know **w-id`u *weid "knows" (subjective)
to reside **as^s^u *es "is"
**w-as^s^u *wes "lives"
to go **alayku *leikW "leaves"
The common theme of these "athematic" verbs is that these Semitic forms seem
to have all contained *-CCu. There might also be a connection with Akkadian
/aba:ru/ when put alongside the IE root *per-.
Athematic stems given by Piotr:
>*kei- 'lie down', *xanh- 'breathe', *ses- 'sleep', *leuk- 'shine', >*wes-
>'put on (clothes)', *wekW- 'speak', etc., etc., etc. (also >*nekWt- 'get
>dark' supported directly by Hittite and indirectly by >the pan-IE word for
>'night').
I don't know. I only have some parts of this mystery covered (btw: Semitic
*n-h "to breathe").
>The same pattern appears with lots of other roots, say *jeug- 'join, >yoke,
>connect', which forms the athematic present *juneg-/*jung-.
But Piotr, my theory shows that *yeug- is in fact
*yeu-g- since a Steppe form *yug- could only have yielded *yegW- at all.
Verb forms with *euC- or *eiC- are caused by something within IndoTyrrhenian
and are not inherited from Steppe. It's either a foreign word or a native
verb *yeu- plus suffix *-g-.
>But even typical thematic verbs like *bhere-ti have athematic >counterparts
>of different types such as the reduplicated *bhi-bher->ti; cf. *gHeue-ti
>versus *gHi-gHeu-ti (from *gHeu- 'make an >offering'. Also the suffix
>*-n(e)u- produces athematic stems (like *t@... >'becomes tense').
>Sometimes we have very simply the same root with >or without the thematic
>vowel, like *teke-ti~*tek-ti 'runs, flows'.
Methinks you're only confusing the issue. You're getting into things that
should be covered by a subsequent "Verner's Law" to explain them but this is
to do with common IE or later, not Middle IE. If the forms you present do
not, in IndoAnatolian, maintain the athematic/thematic contrast as in the
non-reduplicated conjugations we were talking about (*bhere-/*es-), there's
no need to mention them since there is only one regular pattern for those
forms. Or are there thematic verbs with affixes (like a causitive in
*-(n)eu-e-) honestly reconstructed for IE? I know variations exist in
Sanskrit (/invati/ I recall) but this surely isn't from IE.
>Or *leigh-ti~*lighe-ti~*leighe-ti~*linghe-ti~*leigh-je-ti 'licks' (this is
>what is technically known as polymorphism).
Come on, Piotr, this is a cheap arguement. The "polymorphic" forms you
present could not be all reconstructable to common IE nor could this be a
common problem with IE verbs unless you're part of the camp that find IE
reconstruction futile. Quite irrelevant. I don't see anyone seriously
reconstructing all possible variations found just anywhere in IE. Maybe we
should reconstruct *esti/*eseti/*ensti/*esyeti as well? There is most
certainly an original form in that mess that is validly IE.
The forms with *-n- or *-ye- are obviously _derivatives_ and not quite the
same verb (you're being cleverly or unknowingly deceptive). We are left with
only three variations: *leighti/*ligheti/*leigheti. Of the three, *ligheti
is quite invalid for common IE, so what you're talking about is the same
situation as *tek(e)ti where the verb can not easily be ascertained as
athematic or thematic. Irrelevant and redundant since issues that haven't
been resolved in IE can neither be support nor proof against a hypothesis.
> >I guess I should ask, Piotr, "Is there a better theory?"
>
>OK, let me have a closer look at your theory first. You will hear >from me
>(or from my lawyer if I do decide to sue you).
I don't think they have any laws out yet covering an aspect of comparative
linguistics that barely exists yet. So sue me if you want but my case is
strong and I need some cash. I'll see _you_ in court.
:P
- gLeN
______________________________________________________