Re: [tied] Morphology (10/20)

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 14915
Date: 2002-09-01

On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 01:51:22 +0000, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>

>>Likewise, if in the middle 3pl. we find *-ntom, *-ntor(i), *-nto(i),
>>*-ntodh(i), the possibility that all these forms represent the debris
>>of an old paradigm where each form had its proper function is worth
>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
>extremely strange for an ending with a 1ps object marker to generalize its
>>usage to ALL persons as it would have to for your *-ntom.

1st person _indirect_ object marker. The (singular) object marker is -o-, the
plural object marker -es- (as in *-mW-es-dhW < "we (do) them for you (pl.)").
The original sense of *-nt-o-m would have been "they (do) it for me/us".
Likewise *-nt-o-r "they (do) it for thee"; *-nt-o-i "they do it for
him/her/them/themselves", *-ntodh "they (do) it for you". What has been
preserved semantically is the reflexive sense, "I do it for myself" etc.,
corresponding to the forms without overt person marker for the dative (*-h2a(i),
*-th2a(i), *-to(i); *-mWo(i), *-dhwo(i), *-nto(i)). But the forms with personal
dative markers (*-m "for me/us", *-r "for thee", *-dh "for you"), now devoid of
their semantic contents, did not completely disappear. They remained and were
grammaticalized in different ways (e.g. to provide temporal or modal
distinctions, or to supply more characteristic middle endings such as
*-mwodh(o(i)), *-mWesdh(o(i)) instead of *-mWo(i)).

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal