Re: [tied] Qualitative ablaut and prefixing

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 14223
Date: 2002-08-04

>>Another bad example. Although it may be considered
>>a prefix in Late IE, it definitely formed very late,
>>as anyone can see, out of a particle *?e that happened to be positioned
>>before the verb
>In other words, prefixed.

As usual, you miss the point. The point is that IE
originally did not have prefixes AT ALL and that *?e-
was originally NOT A PREFIX even though it came to
be used as a dialectal past tense marker in Late IE.

>>As for "mobile *s", these are all Semitoid loanwords

The *s- is functionless. It is a foreign prefix that
was acknowledged as a prefix in IE only because of
minimal pairs of loans with and without this
Semitoid prefix (cf. Akkadian abaru/ustabbir).
The so-called "prefix" was never productive in IE
unless you can show otherwise where others have failed.

>Whether the function can be recovered in no way affects the possibility of
>it having been a prefix.

It also doesn't affect the possibility that it
_wasn't_ a prefix and there are no other secure
examples showing archaic prefixation in IE, so this
only gives more weight to my position.

>Another example of prefixation in PIE are the preverbs (such as the p- of
>Hitt. p-iyati).

Wrong. This is an example of prefixation in _HITTITE_.
Hittite is not PIE itself. It is a language heavily
affected by Hattic substrate. Hattic, as we know, is
a non-IE language replete with prefixation. Is there
a **p- in IE? I don't think so.

- gLeN

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: