From: elmeras2000
Message: 31101
Date: 2004-02-16
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
[JER:]
> >There
> >are not many cases of IE *-t, and if the 3sg active *-t is
connected with
> >the agent-noun suffix of Ved. is.u.bhr.'-t- 'arrow-carrier', then
it has
> >an allomorph with *-n- and even *-nt-, which opens a whole new
ballgame.
> >These are facts that ought to be considered, and they do not lead
to /tw/
> >as the origin of the second person marker in any obvious way.
[MCV:]
> Final *-t occurs in the 3sg. verbal ending (as well as, obviously,
in the
> 3pl. *-en-t).
My point was that it could be something else that has turned into *-
t in word-final position. In the 3rd dual the /t/ is not final
(secondary ending active Skt. -ta:m, Gk. -ta:n, OCS -te, Toch.B -
tem.), so it does not seem safe to assume it originally was in the
plural. We can only see that the plural corresponding to sg. *-t
surfaces as *-ent, I see no obvious guideline for its segmentation
or other further analysis.
It also occurs in the ablative ending *-ot
We don't know that.
and the
> instrumental ending *-ét, although the latter became *-éh1 (except
in
> Hitt.).
We don't know that either.
It also occurs as the final element of the stem in a number of
> (neuter) nouns, such as *melit and *h2alut.
That looks very safe.
Sanskrit adds *-t to root
> nouns ending in *-i, *-u and *-r.
We don't think we can really diagnose it as /t/, since it is always
at the word-boundary.
(I'm not sure therefore if -bhr.-t can be
> described as an agent noun: in other cases (jit "conquering", s'rut
> "hearing", kr.t "making"), the meaning is that of a verbal noun),
but I'm
> not sure whether this can be derived from PIE itself.
I'm pretty sure it can and must. Wackernagel-Debrunner describe it
as "Erweiterung von Wurzelnomina" in -i-, -u-, -r.- (but if they are
erweitert, are they really still Wurzelnomina?). If they occur with
other meanings than the most common as agent nouns, fine with me.
> Then there are also
> the nouns *ye:kWr.t "liver" (Skt. yakr.t, Arm. leard), *k^okWr.t
(Skt.
> s'akr.t) "excrement", *sneh1wr.t "nerve" (Arm. neard), with final
*-rt (<
> **-nt).
Yes, but that looks like the same can of worms, the one with -nt- in
it.
> I believe the pronominal neuter suffix *-d is also derived from
> *-t, with the same voicing that we see in nom.sg.anim. *-z.
I know you do; I don't. You have **-t surface as PIE *-t, *-H1 and *-
d by now. I am not following you here.
[MCV:]
> >> The point was that pre-PIE had matching 1, 2 and 3rd personal
pronouns
> >> **mu, **tu and **su (cf. Proto-Uralic *mV, *tV, *sV). The third
> >> person pronoun later changed into a reflexive pronoun
[JER:]
> >Later than what? The sibilant is reflexive in Eskimo-Aleut, so
that must
> >be its original function.
[MCV:]
> Why? The sibilant is 3rd. person non-reflexive in Afro-Asiatic
(*suwa,
> *siya), Kartvelian (3rd. person S marker *-s), Uralic (*sV, poss.
> *-sa/*-sen), Altaic (Turk. 3rd. S-marker/possessive *-sI, *-sen).
Well, I know I'm in it over my head here, I just know too little
about the other families. I find it strange that the IE reflexive is
not addressed in Greenberg's IE and its closest Relatives, nor, as
far as I can see, in Bomhard/Kerns. It may have been treated
elsewhere, there is a lot of literature about Nostratic I have not
seen. I am beginning to wonder if one should really be sure that IE
*se is the same as the 3rd person pronoun of Uralic. The Uralic 3rd
person possessive is structured quite differently from the 1st and
2nd person. In Eskimo too, the 3rd person has a structure all its
own, but the reflexive is completely parallel with the 1st and 2nd
person, much as IE *emó-, *tewó-, *sewó- are different from *(H1)
ésyo, but quite like each other. To an amateur like me that still
looks like a good indication that the reflexive function is the
original one with the IE refl.pron.
Even so, I grant you, if there is an /s/, perhaps a different /s/,
supported by external evidence, that could be invoked for the
desinence wanted to sprout the sigmatic aorist.
[...]
[MCV:]
> >> I don't think the thematic -se/so- presents are relevant in this
> >> context. They are thematic, they're presents, and they're hard
to tell
> >> apart (at least in Toch A) from *sk^e-presents.
[JER:]
> >They fall into place within the system we find in the other
languages if
> >the se/so-presents are aorist subjunctives. They have the exact
shape of
> >such forms, and a change from aorist subjunctive to present
indicative
> >is very common indeed, perhaps it is even the most common source
of the
> >e/o-presents.
[MCV:]
> Adams rather connects them with desideratives outside of
Tocharian, not
> with s-aorist subjunctives. The s-aorist subjunctives he
associates with
> imperative class III (s-imperatives).
Yes, don't they all belong together? The general explanation of the
Vedic si-imperative type váks.i, mátsi, párs.i is Szemerényi's
analysis as syncopated forms of the 2sg s-aorist subjunctive
váks.asi, mátsasi, párs.asi (from váhati 'drive',
mádati 'intoxicate', píparti 'cross'). Jasanoff has added a few
forms from Tocharian and Hittite (TB päklyaus. 'hear', Hitt.
pahsi 'guard', Studies Cowgill 1987). I suppose you cannot accept
any of this, for if there are derivatives of the s-aorist in Hittite
and Tocharian, the s-aorist cannot be a secondary creation of
the "Residual IE" left after the separation.
[JER:]
> >You do not know that "Tocharian itself created an s-middle"; the
type
> >corresponds to the middle voice of the s-aorist elsewhere, so
what is the
> >grand demonstration of a Tocharian innovation based on?
[MCV:]
> On Tocharian itself. There is no /s/ in the active (except 3sg.).
There wouldn't be if the other forms come from the perfect.
Palatalisation is very rare in the prt.III, and there are many
traces of reduplication in the accentuation in TB. You can't explain
that from the s-aorist.
[JER:]
> >>>The sigmatic aorist
> >>>is not an outgrowth of the root aorist, but the regular aorist
of
> >>> verbs
> >>> forming an sk-present.
> >>>That makes the -s- of the aorist a
> >>>suffix, not a desinence, from the beginning.
[MCV:]
> >> Suffixes can become desinences and desinences can become
suffixes.
[JER:]
> >But how would you get a desinential *-s into the position it
occupies in
> >the sk-presents?
[MCV:]
> I don't. I'm not convinced that I have to.
[JER:]
> >Why would the putative desinence have spread to all forms
> >of the derived durative companion before it was accepted as part
of the
> >stem in the aorist itself? That is so peculiar that it demands a
strict
> >separation of the s-aorist from the sk-presents. And that just
seems
> >impossible, given such pairs as
> >
> >*pré:k^-s- : *pr.k^-sk^é-ti
> >*H2é:y-s- : *H2is-sk^é-ti
> >*g^né:H3-s- : *g^n.H3-sk^é-ti
> >*yé:m-s- : *ym.-sk^é-ti
> >*g^é:r&2-s- : Gk. ge:rásko:
> >stative *-eH1-s- vs. *-eH1-sk^e/o-
[MCV:]
> That looks good. But if *-sk^é/ó- could be added to *any* verb,
as in
> Hittite (and pre-Tocharian in Adam's analysis), and if the s-
aorist is the
> productive aorist (as opposed to non-productive root aorists), I
wonder if
> I could make a similar list juxtaposing, s-aorists and, say, n-
presents?
> (I may try that later, now I have no time).
You do that. Then I will have to look for some more s/sk-pairs, for
I have made no really systematic search. I'll accept whatever the
evidence has to say. I hope I find the time.
Jens