Re: [tied] Re: Eggs from birds and swift horses (was: the palatal s

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 01:36:48 +0000, elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:

>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.

My analysis, as you know, is a plural morpheme *-en (**-an), giving:

**-mu-án > *-mWén > *-mén/*-méni (or *-wén/*-wéni)
**-tu-án > *-tWén > *-tér/*-téni
**-0-án > *-én + *-t > *-ént/*-énti

This is best preserved in Hittite (-wen, -weni; -ten, -teni; -anzi), and
Tocharian (2pl. -cer < *-te:r, perhaps influenced by 3pl. *-e:r [cf. also
Skt. 2du. pf. -athur]).

The aorist endings were partially different:

**-mu-átu > *-mWésW > *-més
**-tu-átu > *-tWé > *-té
**-0-án > *-én > *-ér + s > *-é:r

The perfect endings were different still:

**-mu > *-mW + -á > *-mWé > *-mé
**-dhu > *-tW + -á > *-té > *-té
**-0-án > *-én > *-ér + s > *-é:r (same as aorist)

>It also occurs in the ablative ending *-ot
>
>We don't know that.

If you mean that we don't know if the ablative ended in *-ot or *-od, it's
true that we cannot know. Hittite -az, however, tips the scales in favour
of *-ot, since *-odi would have given -as, and only *-oti gives -az.

>and the
>> instrumental ending *-ét, although the latter became *-éh1 (except
>> in Hitt.).
>
>We don't know that either.

True. It's my personal theory. But I know of no other theory that
explains the Hitt. inmstrumental -it.

> 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.

It's worse than that. My rules for final **-t(V) are the following (there
are additional rules for non-final *t, which I won't get into right now):

We start off with the following material:

**-t
**-ta
**-ti
**-tu

Already in Nostratic:
(1) **-t > **-n

In pre-PIE:
(2) **-ta > *-t
(3) **-ti > *-y
(4) **-tu > *-sW
(5) **-n > *-r (except after *m)

In pre-PIE, after the loss of final vowels:

(6) *=t > *=d
*=sW > *=z

(i.e. asyllabic consonantal desinences are voiced (and delabialized),
except when sentence-final [i.e. verbal])

Finally, in "post-Anatolian":

(7) *-ét > *-éh1

Rule (1) explains the alternation *t/*s ~ *r/*n (e.g. 1pl. -mén, -més)
Rule (3) explains *trey(-es) ~ *tr.ty-os, and *-es ~ *-oy in the o-stem
plural.
Rule (4) explains the plural -es, the 2sg. -s, etc.
Rule (5) explains the r/n-heteroclitics, and 3pl. -ent ~ -e:r, and why we
have neuters in -mn. and 1pl. -mén, instead of -mr., -mér.
Rule (6) explains the nom.sg. in *-z, and neuter *-d in e.g. *tod.
Rule (7) explains the Hitt. instrumental.

>[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.

I'll get back to this later. Perhaps Nostratic-L might be a better forum?

>[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.

That's the general idea, but I'm of course willing to go wherever the
evidence leads me. I was in a hurry yesterday when I replied to your
remarks about Tocharian, and of course I failed to master the details of
Tocharian verbal morphology in the 15 minutes I had given myself for the
task. I'll look into matter more closely at the earliest opportunity.

As a general remark on the interrelationship of s-aorist and sk-presents, I
am surprised you haven't mentioned the Armenian (regular) aorist in -c`- <
*-sk^V-.

>[JER:]
>> >
>> >*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.

Me too.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...