Re: [tied] Re: Active / Stative

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 00:01:21 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> I don't follow. -i is *always* the 1sg. middle past ending.
>> It has nothing to do with the accent or the Ablaut. Why
>> isn't the 2sg. *á-mam.s-ti then?
>
>Sure, but the alternation between -i and -a as the ending of the 1sg
>middle must have some basis

But there is nothing in the rest of IE to suggest it has any
basis in PIE. The 1sg. middle is based on *-h2a- everywhere
(Hitt. -ha(ha)(ri), -hahat(i); Arm. -ay, Toch. -mar, -mai;
Goth -da, Lat. -or (<~ *-h2ar), Grk. -mai, -ma:n). The sole
exception is the Indo-Iranian past middle, which
"discredits" itself by also having quite an ideosyncratic
2sg. form -tha:s.

>> >> >Phonologically the added vowel of the perfect could well be
>the
>> >> >thematic vowel, but that of the middle voice cannot.
>> >>
>> >> Why? As I said above, the vowel and the accent and the
>> >> Ablaut and everything behave consistently with a thematic
>> >> (-0-é-) paradigm.
>> >
>> >Because it has a zero-grade alternant which is something we do
>not
>> >have with the thematic vowel.
>>
>> What zero grade alternant? Do you mean zero grade of the
>> root, or of the "thematic" vowel?
>
>The "it" is the final vowel of the endings of the perfect and the
>middle voice. The vowel ablauts in the middle voice

I don't think it does. Indo-Iranian past middle 1sg. -i
aside, all the other evidence (including the Indo-Iranian
present middle) points to a non-ablauting vowel:

1. *-h2á-
2. *-th2á-
3. *-tó-/*-ó-
1. *-medhó- (or *-medhh2á- ?)
2. *-dhwó-
3. *-ntó-/*-ró-

>But if you are
>right when you say it also ablauts in the perfect

Did I say that?

>> And where does _that_ come from?
>
>You shoot that out as if it were a central point in the argument
>which it isn't. All it takes is that the a-subjunctive exists. I see
>a few possibilities:
>
>1. The type fuam fua:s fuat, in origin the injunctive of the aorist
>stem *bhwaH- (*bhuH-), which was used as a subjunctive, caused
>reanalysis of the segment /-a:-/ as a subjunctive morpheme. Against
>it may be objected that we would like to use the same reanalysis to
>explain the /-a:-/ of eram, era:s, erat as a *preterite* preterite
>morpheme segmented off from the aor.inj.
>
>2. It was the thematic subjunctive of H2-final roots (thus
>Rix/Meiser). I fail to see a distributional support for this.
>
>3. It was the same form as the Celtic a:-subjunctive, OIr. beraid ~
>Lat. ferat. The Celtic formation however has now acquired an
>explanation which is not easily transferred to Italic. Since the a:-
>sbj. alternates with the s-sbj. according to root structure, it is
>attractive to derive them both from *-&1s-e/o- ~ *-H1s-e/o-, which
>would be parallel with the type in *-&1s-ye/o- ~ *-H1s-ye/o-. Sihler
>does this (basically preceded by Thurneysen); McCone spells out the
>same alternation, but will have it explained by analogy. An
>intelligent rescue operation was worked out by my student Anders
>Jørgensen who asked the question, What would it take? If OIr. beraid
>is from *bher-&1s-ye-ti via *beraseti > *bera:Ti in Irish, then a
>parallel explanation of Italic *fera:t (or perhaps *feraet) would
>have to have passed through *ferayet with assimilation of *-sy- to *-
>yy- and subsequent simplification before loss of single *-y- between
>vowels. It seems that other examples of *-sy- in Latin, which show a
>result /-yy-/ as eius, cuius, have the cluster after the first vowel
>of the word, so that it is imaginable that the cluster was reduced
>after non-first vowel in which case the forms can be regular and
>congruent with those of other branches.

I can see a problem here: in non-first vowel cases, *-osy(o)
is reduced to -i:(u) (illi:u(s), isti:u(s)), so it would be
a bit surprising if *-asy- > *-ayy- had developed to a:
instead of i:.

What about a:-subjunctives and a:-preterites in other
branches (Baltic, Armenian, Tocharian)?

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