Peter:
>Because you are arguing that the origin of the -sko suffix was -s- + -g-,
>specifically, -g- on sigmatic aorists. Before I can
>accept this I need to see either why -g- was suffixed only to aorists of
>this kind, or that it was suffixed to aorists in general.
But I don't understand why this is your criteria for acceptance.
I'm stating that *-g- could be applied to _any_ stem to form a
derivative verb, not just aorists, even to create verbs out of
stative denominals as with *bHoh-g- (*bHo:g-) from *bHeh-.
The issue of *-g- has little to do with aorists at all. I'm
simply saying that *-sk- specifically is derived from aorist *-s-
and this intensive *-g-. The very repetitive, inchoative meaning
of *-sk- could be taken as having this aorist nuance if we define
"aorist" as "a momentaneous, non-abrupt action". These repetitive
actions _are_ momentaneous (at least in that they have a defined
start as with *r-sk- "to get moving, set in motion") AND they are
clearly not sudden actions or actions that arrive at a state for
the very fact that they are repetitive (so they are more aorist
than perfective, which is also momentaneous but abrupt or
resultative by nature).
Ergo, I'd say that it is very possible that I'm right and your
criteria for acceptance is too rigid and not logical based on
these facts.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail