Re: [tied] Stative Verbs, or Perfect Tense

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:29:38 +0000, P&G
<G&P@...> wrote:

>
>>> I think the PIE perfect relates to the present of the -hi verbs,
>>> not the past.
>> Is there any basis for this verdict? On what basis did you make up your
>> mind?
>
>
>Purely derivative, I'm afraid! I merely repeat what greater scholars say.
>E.g. Lehmann: "These [perfect] endings correspond to those of the -hi
>conjugation in Hittite."
>Though I freely confess scholarly opinion varies to an extreme on this
>point, e.g. Szemerényi:
>"The -hi conjugation is thus not inherited but a Hittite innovation, which
>is not shared even with other Anatolian languages."
>
>>Do Sanskrit -a, Gk. -a resemble
>> Hitt. prs. -hi (older -he) more than they do Luvian prt. -ha? Do
>> Skt. -tha, Gk. -tha resemble Hitt. prs. -ti (older -te) better than
>> they do Hitt. prt. -ta?
>
>This is a little disingenuous, Jens. We cannot simply compare the existing
>forms. Rather we must compare what we can safely reconstruct, namely the
>singular endings:
> *-ha< h2e, *-tha < -th2e, * -e
>and we must also allow that Hittite has remodelled the -hi conjugation on
>the basis of the -mi conjugation. Hence we have:
> Hittite -hi < older -he ~ reconstructed *-he
> HIttite -t- < older -te ~ reconstructed *-the
> Hittite -i < older -e ~ reconstructed *-e

2sg. *-te and 3sg. *-e are not attested, although the 2sg.
form is required by the reconstruction, which would be :

1. *-h2a-i > -he(:) > -hi
2. *-th2a-i > *-te(:) > -ti
3. *-e-i > -i

These are the perfect endings, enlarged by *-i.

The past of the hi-conjugation can be reconstructed as:

1. *-h2a (Hittite *-h2-m. > -hun analogical)
2. *-th2a
3. *-s,

which does not correspond with the perfect endings.


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