From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 33327
Date: 2004-06-30
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 enlil@... wrote:
>
> Jens fixes an error:
> > Sorry, there was a typo in this. It should be "of what ...", not "if
> > what ...". I try again:
>
> Yes, I gathered as much. Thanks.
So it was just by malevolence you acted as if you did not understand my
drift?
> Jens:
> >>> So I read, but of what? And of what is *sod-i-tó-s 'made sit down'
> >>> the genitive? And *néw-o-s? And *bhér-o-m&1no-s 'being carried'
> >>> and *dhugh-m.H1nó-s 'being utilized'?
> >
> > Thus addressed, now in understandable terms, you can no longer reply
> > as follows:
> >
> >> This is what I'm saying. I've given the Mandarin example that shows
> >> that this is a real possibility that can't be discounted.
> >
> > Then, what *are^* the forms mentioned the genitives of?
>
> Erh, I suspect you mean from the confusing grammar above "What are the
> forms, that I have cited previously, the genitives of?"
Oh, arh, is that the grammatically well-formed way to say that? Much
obliged.
> Starting with *soditós, it can be clearly seen that it is the genitive
> of an action noun in *-t that is further based on the causative of 'sit'
> (*sod-eye-).
What type of word-formation is that? Please show us three credible
examples demonstrating that such an action noun type *sodit- exists. Where
do I go find *monit-, *loghit-, *k^lowit- with the meanings "act of
causing to think", "act of laying down", "act of causing to hear"? Or is
the causative meaning not contained in the causative stem? Where are they,
and what do they mean, and how did you get so well acquainted with them?
> The adjective *newos is the genitive of the verb stem *neu-.
And what is that? The "full-grade" is a concomitant effect of vrddhi,
being a derivative type forming adjectives of belonging marked
morphologically by addition of a thematic vowel and insertion of an -e- in
the first syllable. So *neu- has no status outside of *néw-o-. The
derivational basis of *néw-o- 'new' is the adverb *nu 'now'.
> The semantic difference between 'the new house' and 'the house of (being)
> new' is moot but in fact, we say this in English (eg: 'the days of old').
But 'new' is not *neu-, it is *newo-. And by what standard can "of new" be
said to be based on a verb as you say? What other forms are there of that
verb? Please don't hesitate to enlighten us.
> Finally, *bHeromhnos and *dHugHmhnos just seem to be genitives of
> *bHeromn-hn- 'that which is carried' and *dHugHmn-hn- 'that which is
> being availed of', further derived from mediopassive forms of *bHer- and
> *dHeugh- respectively. What's the problem with any of that?
Plenty. None of them is acceptable by any standard. The last one is so
pitiful it hurts. The wisdom of the hyphens and the accumulation of nasals
seem to have passed completely above your head. One shakes one's head in a
desperate attempt to figure out why you choose to segment the forms this
way, seeing that this is not at all a commonly accepted analysis. My
student Fabrice Cavoto will be pleased to see his protoform accepted,
but he would probably be more pleased if it had been used for something
sensible. As it stands, you are saying that the verbal nouns in
*-men-/-mn- with added postposition *H1en-/H1n- 'in', i.e. "in carrying",
"in utilizing", mean "being carried" and "being utilized" when used in the
genitive, and a genitive marker positioned *after* the relational
postposition at that. This is a complete salad of morphology and even of
functional linguistics. My students would not get away with it.
Jens