Re: [tied] Hello/Intro and a Question on Particle *h1é

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:56:37 -0700, Doug Barr
<lingoman@...> wrote:

>I have a question that I hope hasn't been answered before - at 32000+
>plus messages I didn't search the entire archive :-) - concerning the
>use of the particle *h1é.

*h1e- has been discussed before...

>If I'm reading my books right it was used to
>signal the perfect, e.g. *h1é bhéret "he brought," but it seems that
>one could use just the perfect *bhéret" on its own.

*(h1e-)bheret is not a "perfect". It's either an imperfect
or an aorist (depending on the specific verbal root).

>So my question is, is *h1é ever attested with present-tense form, e.g.
>**h1é bhérei?

No.

>The reason I ask is that it occurred to me to wonder if the function of
>*h1é might be semantically similar to the function of the inchoative
>(?) "current relevance" particle 'la' of Cantonese; this is essentially
>the same as 'le' in Mandarin, except that in Mandarin the perfective
>verbal suffix is also '-le' and the two cannot occur next to each
>other, whereas in Cantonese the two are distinct and can co-occur,
>which makes things clearer.
>
>In Cantonese, the particle 'la' at the end of the sentence in Cantonese
>means that the situation has "come to be," i.e. it is "currently
>relevant" or represents a change from a previous state. In the
>following examples, 'ngóh' is "I/me," "jouh' is "do" and 'sih' is
>literally "matter, affair" but the combination 'jouh sih' is a politer
>word for "to work." So we have: ngóh jouh sih' "I work" (blanket
>statement) vs. 'ngóh jouh sih la' "I work (now)" (I didn't use to,
>perhaps); negative 'ngóh m`h jouh sih' "I don't work" (blanket
>statement) vs. 'ngóh m`h jouh sih la' "i don't work now, I don't work
>any more."
>
>The particle '-jó' adds a perfective meaning - 'ngóh jouh-jó sih' "I
>went-to work," 'ngóh jouhjó sih la' "I have gone to work," "I am at
>work."
>
>These indicate aspect, not tense. Mostly they indicate the past, but
>they can appear in any tense: 'la' adds the meaning that the situation
>is currently relevant or a new situation, or (with the future) that it
>will be so at the time specified; '-jó' adds the meaning that the
>action was/is/will be completed at the time specified.
>
>So in PIE, IF the parallel is there, it would run *bhéret "he brought,
>he did bring," *h1é bhéret "he (has) brought," *bhérei "he brings, he
>is bringing" - then ***h1é bhérei "he is bringing now (but didn't use
>to, or what he brought is still here and "currently relevant")?"
>
>I hope this is not completely off the wall! Thanks for any comments or
>corrections - learning is good, as I said.

The PIE augment doesn't seem to carry any aspectual meaning.
In the languages that show *h1e-, it's used as a general
marker of past tense, regardless of aspect (it is combined
with imperfects, aorists, pluperfects, etc.). In Vedic, the
*lack* of augment turns the verbal form into an "injunctive"
(a modal category which is similar to conjunctive, optative
and/or imperative).

The last time we discussed *h1e- here, I seem to recall a
general willingness to accept that it originates in a
particle meaning "then". In Anatolian, most Hittite
sentences begin with an 'empty' particle nu-, while in
Luwian the same function is performed by a- (< *h1e-). For
Proto-Anatolian, we can therefore reconstruct two sentence
introductory particles, *nu- "now" and *h1e- "then".
Although the Anatolian facts do not suggest anything like
it, it stands to reason that *nu- was originally used to
introduce present tense sentences, and *h1e- sentences in
the past tense. From there, it's but a small step to the
augment as attested in Greek, Vedic and elsewhere.


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