Re: [tied] Morphology (10/20)

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 14888
Date: 2002-09-01

>Of course no (IE) language reflects such a 9x9 grid, but that's the whole

Yes, that _is_ the point. You lose. Thank you for playing the gLeN game.
trip on your way out :)

>Likewise, if in the middle 3pl. we find *-ntom, *-ntor(i), *-nto(i),
>the possibility that all these forms represent the debris of an old
>where each form had its proper function is worth investigating.

Perhaps, but it also doesn't guarantee that the grid you propose existed,
particularly if the usage of the middle was largely reflexive. It seems
strange for an ending with a 1ps object marker to generalize its usage to
persons as it would have to for your *-ntom. Obviously this is unworkable so
let's just accept this and find another idea that better fits the facts.

>> MIE Stative
>> -----------
>> sing. pl.
>> 1 *-xe *-wes
>> 2 *-te NULL
>> 3 *-e *-e
>The 2sg. is *-th2a, the 1pl. is *-m(W)? A zero ending of the 2pl. (at
>at some pre-stage, leading to PIE *-? is a possibility, judging by Vedic
>-?and perhaps Paelignian lex-e (if a 2pl. perfect, not an infinitive).

I realize that the 2p singular is reconstructed as *-txa in Late IE and
okay. However the theories I now have on MIE syllabics prohibit me from
*-txa is normal. A form like *-txa could only derive from an MIE form
with accent on *e because of penultimate accentuation. Something is strange
about that ending.

It looks strongly to me as though *-txa is the product of analogy with the
1ps *-xa during the early half of the Late IE stage, since we should have
normally found *-xa (*e laryngealized to *a) versus **-te, but this would
have destroyed the nice rhyme between the 1ps and 2ps. Instead, the rhyme
preserved by dragging the 2ps closer in form to the 1ps.

As for the mpassive, I can't say I have it fully worked out. A part of me is
starting to have a nasty suspicion that it is only datable to Late IE. Gotta
think some more.

- gLeN

Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.