Re: PIE uncoloured *a, intensive verbs in *-g-, and *?ego:

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
> Peter recently states on the Tychicus thread:
> >Latin verbs with -a- vocalism have a number of different origins,

usually

> >developing the -a- within Italic. There's work to be done there,

someone!

>
> And to this, I'd add that there is work to be done still on

instances of

> uncoloured *a in PIE.
>
> I just realized that I'm probably wrong about *bHo:g-. Actually, it

probably

> _is_ derived from the o-grade of *bHeh- and thus we must write

*bHoh-g-.

> But now, that is an interesting conclusion because we naturally

wonder:

> What is *-g- supposed to convey, why do we find the o-grade in the

stem,

> and how does this relate to my statement that some instances of *a

are

> caused by voiced labial phonemes preventing a normal pre-IE change

of

> earlier *a to *o?
>
> Now I think I get it. I'm now claiming that *bHoh-g- is derived

from *bHeh-

> and that it is the product of a stative nominal stem being attached

with

> an intensive marker *-g- which derives from the emphatic enclitic

*ge. We

> then can observe a series of these "intensive"-derived stems.

Another

> example of an intensive stem would be *bHux-g- "to flee, fly away"

from

> the secondary meaning "to rise" of the verb *bHeux- "to grow up

from the

> ground". (Or have I overanalyzed these verbs?)
>
> If this is so, it shows that an IE verb could be produced simply

with a

> noun phrase without any verbal stem by using the intervening

enclitic *ge.

> This conclusion in turn validates the origin I claim for *?eg(-o:/-

om) "I",

> which is to be properly understood as literally "my being here; as

for me"

> from the synthesis of *?e "here", *ge [emphatic], and a 1ps ending.
>
> Now that we have that straightened out, why did I mention the *a-

rule that

> I'm constantly revising? Well, the new rule goes like this:
>
> Instances of uncoloured *a in PIE derive from the failure of the
> general Late IE vowel shift (*a > *o) to operate on any short

*a's

> that neighboured voiced labial phonemes (*m, *b, *bH, *w) within

the

> default stem of a paradigm.
>
> What does that mean by "within the default stem of a paradigm"? I

mean

> to say that if a verb was inheirantly aorist like *dehW- "give",

then the

> default stem is the aorist stem *dehW- (not the derived durative

stem

> *didehW-). Obviously. So this rule can only apply to *dehW-, not to
> *didehW- or to *dedohW-.
>
> So now, let's imagine a stem which is naturally in the o-grade in

its

> simple default paradigm. Now let's imagine that we are speaking

early

> Late IE (eLIE) where *a has not yet become *o. Here then, we must

think

> of a verb which is naturally in the "a-grade" instead. Now let's

further

> imagine that this eLIE stem of the natural shape *CaC-, which

normally

> develops into PIE as *CoC-, is something like **mag-. Since *a

neighbours

> a voiced labial in this example, *a will not become *o, and the

result

> is PIE **mag- instead of **mog-. However, if we imagine a pretend

eLIE

> durative e-grade stem **meg-, it will develop the normal perfect
> **memog- (with *o, not *a). This is because we are now speaking of a
> derived form which depends on the simple stem **meg-, rather than

the

> simple stem itself on which the above rule on *a applies.
>
> Got it? So, back to *bHoh-g-, we would think that we should have

**bHah-g-

> until we realize that *bHoh- would be a derived stative form of the

simple

> stem *bHeh-. Therefore, the *a rule does not apply.
>
> This rule would give insight into the origins of all a-grade stems

in PIE

> that do not appear to be the result of uvular colouring of *e next

to *x

> or *q.
>
> Additional thoughts anyone?
>

Bomhard has
18 *bad-/*b&d- "to split, cleave, separate, divide" (PIE, PAA, PD,
Sum, PEsk)
22 *bak'-/*b&k'- "to cleave, split, break open" (PIE, PAA, PFU, PD,
PInuit)
25 *bay-/*b&y- "to apportion, divide into shares, distribute, allot"
(PIE, PAA, PAlt, Sum, PEsk)

plus
20 *bah-/*b&h- "to shine" (PIE, PAA)
21 *bah-/*b&h- "to say, speak" (PIE, PAA)


The question is, is the g- (or whatever) suffix PIE, or is it
Nostratic, or possibly occurring in loaned extra-Nostratic doublets?
You run the risk of doing the equivalent of trying to reconstruct the
PGrm form of the -tion suffix found in most Germanic languages.

I still think that -ge "particle" in some way is related to some form
of Austronesian 'aku'.



Torsten