On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:41:37 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer
<
mcv@...> wrote:
[The Hittite hi-conjugation past corresponds to the PIE
s-aorist].
So if the PIE perfect is *not* the hi-conjugation past, then
what is it? And what is the hi-conjugation present?
The latter question is relatively easy: it is the stative
conjugation *-h2e, *-th2e, *-e extended with "hic et nunc"
*-i (*-h2ai, *-thai, *-ei => -hi/-he, -ti, -i).
The perfect is the same "stative conjugation", but
reduplicated. I would agree with Jasanoff that the 3pl. was
originally *-r (perfect 3 plurals in *-érs and *-r.s are
intrusions from the root aorist and s-aorist, respectively).
The "stative" *-h2e, *-th2e, *-e, ..., *-r. was therefore
characterized by having a zero marker for the third person,
not *-t like the present/imperfect, or *-s like the aorist.
We see the same zero marker in certain middle forms (in
Hittite, specifically the hi-conjugation middles):
*-o-i/*-o-r, *-r-o-i/*-r-o-n/*-r-o-m (besides t-marked
*-t-o-i/*-t-o-r, *-nt-o-i/*-nt-o-r/*-nt-o-m).
The addition of -i in Hittite turns the form into an
(imperfective) present (in opposition to the hi-past =
stative aorist/perfective). Reduplication is usually a sign
of iterativity, so also imperfective.
Traces in Vedic of the old unextended, unreduplicated
hi-conjugation are ve:da (*woid-h2a) "I have seen" -> "I
know", and a verb like duh "to milk" (impf. 3sg. áduhat,
3pl. áduhran [*h1e-dh(o)ugh-e, *h1e-dh(e)ugh-r.] instead of
regular ádhok (*h1e-dheugh-t), áduhan (*h1e-dhugh-ent).
The original meaning of the reduplicated perfect
*Ve-VoRB-h2a may have been "I have repeatedly VeRB'ed; I
have VeRB'ed a lot; I have VeRB'ed and VeRB'ed". E.g.
memini: "I have thought and thought" -> "I (have)
remember(ed)".
But why "have"? The true stative (as in Akkadian s^arr-a:ku
"I am king") means "I am X". When added to an appropriate
verbal noun / particple, this can in principle give:
1. (present/active) I am X-ing = present progressive
2. (past/passive> I am X-ed (by Y) = passive past (=>
perfect)
3. (present/passive) I am being X-ed = passive present
4. (past/active) I am having X-ed = perfect/past
The development of the stative to a perfective in Semitic
may have passed by way of (4) [there is no reversal in the
subject/object marking as we would expect for (2)]. For
comparison (but without an actual stative verbal form), in
Indo-Iranian we have (2) [past perfect with ergative
construction]. Another case of (4) would be the Slavic
l-past (where the l-participle is (was) a past active ptc.).
I'm not aware of grammaticalizations of the passive present
(3), and in general it seems to be the case that many
languages lack participles 3. and 4. (present/passive and
past/active).
There is another well trodden path to a periphrastic
perfect: the use of a past/passive ptc. with the verb "to
have". And if "to have" is lacking, it can be replaced by
"to be to s.o. (Dat.)" (the Latin "mihi est" construction).
One point where Jasanoff fails to convince me (or to provide
an understandable solution) is the relationship between
hi-conjugation and middle. Perhaps the "mihi est"
construction can provide an answer.
If we compare the middle/perfect/hi-conjugation endings with
what we see in Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, Uralic, Chukchi,
etc., we would expect the following endings:
1. *-h2
2. *-th2
3. *-0
3. *-(e)r
The actual PIE endings have an added element *-e- (*-o- in
the middle, but still *-a- after *h2), which comes after the
personal endings:
1. *-h2-a, 2. *-th2-a, 3. *-e, 3. M. *-ro- (*-nto-)
My suggestion is that this *-e somehow turns the stative "I
am" (with *-h2 as subject) into a verbal form meaning "it is
to me" = "I have [it]" (with *-e presumably the subject, and
*-h2- the indirect object).
When added to a verbal noun/adjective characterized by a
heavy (lengthened) root vowel (o/e: ~ e/0 Ablaut) the result
is the whole complex of the hi-conjugation/perfect/s-aorist,
which can be roughly translated as "I have VERB'ed" (mihi
est VERBatum), denoting a present state resulting from past
action. The "o-form" of the verb must have been comparable
to a past/passive participle.
When added to a verbal noun/adjective characterized by a
short root vowel (e ~ 0 Ablaut) the result is the middle,
which I suggest might be roughly translated as "I have to
VERB" (mihi est VERBare). The "e-form" of the verb must
have been comparable to an infinitive. The middle then
denoted an action out of the direct control of the subject.
Does anybody understand what I'm getting at?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...