--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> SUBJUNCTIVE
> -----------
> As I originally stated, the thematic vowel must be seperated from
the
> subjunctive in *-he-. It would be absurd to add *h just anywhere
> without limit.
But it should also have a motivation in the subjunctive; and the
positing of two separate structures, one thematic "*bhér-e-ti", the
other subjunctive "*H1éy-H1e-ti" to go by your instructions, should
also have a motivation. Why, just to mention a possibility is it not
the reverse, and why are they not identical? If they do not function
the same, why are they not homophones?
> Thematic vowels have no semantic value, the end.
They patently adjectivise when on their own. But often they just
constitute the final partt of a suffix ending in a vowel. They also
appear in the pronouns where they appparently do little more than
constitute an inflectible stem.
> However
> the subjunctive, if *-he-, most certainly does have a specific
value.
Yes, but so it could if it was just *-e/o-.
> So while the meaningless thematic is nothing more than a vowel, the
> subjunctive is actually a analysable _morpheme_ with a CV
structure.
That is no valid criterion by any standard: Why can't a morpheme
have the structure *-e/o-, and, for that matter, why couldn't an
empty morph have the structure *-H1e/o-? Where are the guidelines
that made you so sure?
> I use *h here to explain the subjunctive forms for what they really
> are, not as a seemingly random lengthening of thematic vowel that
you
> fail to explain, but as the merger of two vowels seperated by the
*h of
> the subjunctive morpheme. In that way, the
unexplained "lengthening" is
> addressed as a trivial addition of a distinct affix in these forms.
> Without adding *h, you cannot properly explain why a subjunctive
> *bHere:t should alternate with indicative *bHereti. Well, I've
already
> stated the only sensible solution that explains the attested form
> completely: *bHer-e-he-t.
You give no reason why you prefer *-e-H1e- over *-e-e- as the input
of later *-e:-. That the subjunctive of thematic stems has two
thematic vowels is common opinion and has probably always been so. I
am aware of the suggestion of *-H1e/o- (sic, with thematic vowel
after /H1/) advanced by Beekes and reiterated by Tichy, but I cannot
see the validity of their justification of it. Beekes wants a
separating consonant in IE, since he cannot imagine hiatus being
preserved into Avestan; I don't see why hiatus cannot reflect
hiatus. Tichy wants the /H1/ to be that of the stative marker *-eH1-
, but does not really say why (and I surely can't see why). Still, *-
H1e/o- is not excluded, but it is open for both types, i.e. for
*bhér-(H1)e-ti as well as for *H1éy-(H1)e-ti.
> Further, we can see the etymology clearly now in the form which you
> concede is "not impossible", the closest to an agreement you can
ever
> muster.
That depends. If things are possible, I agree they are. If they are
unmotivated, I also say that. But even the unmotivated is sometimes
true. I can't really know for sure, but neither can you.
I am a biut surprised you have not used a potential argument I do
see in favour of what you are saying, viz., the failure of the
thematic vowel of the verbal stem to turn into /o/. If *bhér-e-e-ti
were that way from the beginning, the thematic vowel rule should
change the first -e- into -o-, since voice follows in the second
vowel (and the result of *-o-e- thus created would surely be *-oo- >
*-o:-); that would be prevented from happening if the sequence is in
reality *-e-H1e-. That, however, is not compelling: For one thing,
also *-H1e-H1e- would yield *-e-e- > *-e:- as we find, so they could
both have the form you posit for the subjunctive marker. Another
thing is that the use of the subjunctive form as a present
indicative can simply have come about after the change of thematic e
into o before voice had ceased to operate.
>
> THEMATIC VERBS IN ALL ASPECTS?
> ------------------------------
> You state that the reduplicated present of *bHer- is irrefutably
> athematic. Whoopsy, you got me. So it is *bHibHérti then and so
> Acrostatic Regularization has no bearing here as I had said.
>
> But...
>
> We still have an accent on the _second_ syllable here. QAR is
saying
> that a syllable was lost... the thematic vowel.
QAR (whole core unit is "penultimate" if I remember correctly) has
said many things already to which the facts just did not listen. I
do not see the lexical accent being asssigned by such a rule. I have
not seen it work successfully. I know of no rule that forbids accent
on the root in a structure *bhV-bhér-ti > PIE *bhi-bhér-ti. It is a
strong form of the paradigm, the ending consists of a consonant only
and so does not move the accent, in sum there is no problem here.
> However, if it was
> lost by Syncope, that vowel must be MIE *a.
Well, if none is lost, it shows nothing of the sort. But certainly,
it may have been *any* vowel that wasn't there.
> So, the only way to explain
> why we have an athematic stem here is to conclude that these
reduplicated
> stems were once aorist like the other athematic stems that I've
also
> concluded were once aorist in order to explain the same lack of
vowel.
Well then, not so. Athematic stems need no explanation. The
reduplicated present type is regularly *opposed* to an aorist of the
underived type (root aorist), so an aorist is just about the last
thing it would be. And if it important for you that it is, it is
important to stay away from your analyses which are one again contra
hoc.
> That works semantically when I come to think about it since aorists
> are afterall "actions as a whole". Repetitive actions are also
actions
> spoken of as a whole. So that means the more proper MIE iterative
stem,
> being now aorist, would have to be *be-bera-, not **be-bere- which
would
> have yielded my erroneous **bHíbHereti if only it were true.
The aorist denotes the mentioning of an event, a change in the
story. The present aspect stays within the situation already there;
the reduplicated present, quite obviously iterative in origin, must
have denoted an ongoing repetition of an event already introduced in
the aorist. The word at hand would then mean "keep on
bringing", "bringing ever more ...". The intensive which has a more
conspicuous reduplication only exists in the present aspect, forming
no accompanying aorist.
>
> That would suggest that
> the typical form of an aorist stem in MIE was simply CeC-a- or
> reduplicated Ce-CeC-a-.
That should be *CéC-/*CC-´, present *Ci-CéC-/*Cé-CC-. But the
present could also be a nasal present or a y-present. The athematic
reduplicated structure is specifically NOT an aorist. The only way
it culd be called so would be by a fundamental change of the
terminology. You are no stranger to that, I have seen. Well, again,
I'll have some whales for lunch now, if I may call sardines by that
word.
> That works. Another example of an aorist would
> be 1ps *t:ehWa-m 'I give' also conforming that that pattern (hence
> *dehWm "I give").
The root *deH3- just formed *déH3-m 'I gave'. Why the unmotivated
fuss?
Jens