Re: [tied] Re: Active / Stative

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 13:54:52 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- 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.

That's what I find suspect. Shouldn't *-a-h2i have given
-a:i (= -ai)? That's what *-a-h2i (and *-a-h2ai) give in
the athematic subjunctive (and generally in the a:-stem
dative and locative, though not in Sanskrit).

Thematic <bhare>/<abhare> can only be from
*(h1e-)bher-h2-a-i, an athematic form, or in fact, a form
with displaced thematic vowel, as I've been claiming.

This also suggests one possible analogical source for the
ending -i. If *h1é-bher-h2ai -> ábharai was reinterpreted
as a-bhar-a-i, then an athematic ending -i might have been
abstracted from that.

>[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

Not if the G.sg. -i: of thematic nouns is also from *-osyo
(> *-oyyo > *-i:o > -i:).

>and so likely to show the effect of what happened in the
>shortest pronouns, much as Gothic antharai like thai.

But illi:us and isti:us do _not_ follow the example of
e:ius, cu:ius and hu:ius.

>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.

Yes, that's what I meant.

>I don't think that is so easy to disprove.

Well, it's possible that (unstressed) *-ayyV- developed
differently from *-oyyV-. What's the usual development of
unstressed *o and *a in Latin?

>> 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?

The Lith. a:-preterite (o-preterite). The Armenian middle
past -a-. The Latin a:-preterite (eram, -bam).

What I see is a marker -a:-, which serves both as a
subjunctive and/or a preterite. Wouldn't a
(non-reduplicated, zero-grade) perfect subjunctive (1sg.
*-a-h2á / *-á-h2a > -á:) make a good source for it?

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