From: elmeras2000
Message: 33721
Date: 2004-08-07
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
[JER:]
> >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.
The other branches offer nothing to work on, Indo-Iranian does. That
should be considered, not disregarded. That other problems are
intractable is not valid reason for staying away from those do lend
themselves to some analysis. You normally address problems with much
greater optimism. The Indic present also needs ablaut: athematic
duhé from *-H2á-i, thematic bháre from *bhér-a-H2-i. From *-a-H2-i
may also be explained Greek -ai of -omai.
> >[] 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-
I won't put "Indo-Iranian past middle 1sg. -i aside", for that's the
main evidence for the ablauting.
> >But if you are
> >right when you say it also ablauts in the perfect
>
> Did I say that?
On renewed reading I see you didn't really. You said a short form *-
H2, supposedly reflected in Anatolian, was rather a survival of an
earlier system where *-e had not been added yet. I think we can
leave it there.
[On the suggestion of *-&sye/o- as the basis of the Latin a:-sbj.:]
> 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:.
The good man knows that of course, and the rebuttal is easy (you
would surely use it yourself if you had to): The counterexamples are
pronouns and so likely to show the effect of what happened in the
shortest pronouns, much as Gothic antharai like thai. The report "*-
asy- [] to a:" is not accurate, what is meant is word-internal *-
asye-/*-asyo- > *-ayye-/*-ayyo- > *-aye-/*-ayo- > *-ae-/*-ao- > -a:-
by contration. I don't think that is so easy to disprove.
> What about a:-subjunctives and a:-preterites in other
> branches (Baltic, Armenian, Tocharian)?
They do not seem to exist. The Tocharian thing is Tocharian /-a:-/
from _short_ *-a-, i.e. *-&-, the final phoneme of set-roots. The
other branches have no a-markers specifically marking a subjunctive.
What is meant?
I think one should be willing to go to quite great lengths to rescue
the connection OIr. beraid = Lat. ferat. Anders Jørgensen has
spelled out what it would take - and we may take it or leave it.
Jens