Re: [tied] Stative Verbs, or Perfect Tense

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:26:48 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> 2sg. *-te and 3sg. *-e are not attested, although the 2sg.
>> form is required by the reconstruction, which would be :
>
>I'm afraid you are right, there is no attested Hitt. 2sg prs. *-te.
>That was a mistake. I can't see it matters though.
>
>> 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.
>
>Hey, come on, the 1sg and 2sg do correspond with the perfect.

So do the 1, 2 _and_ 3sg of the hi-present (modulo the *-i).

Of course neither the present nor the past of the Anatolian
hi-conjugation ever had reduplication, which means that
neither is an exact match.

>Hittite 3sg prs. -i and 3sg prt. -s do not correspond with each
>other, so why would that be so securely normative?

Watkins' law.

More importantly, the *-s in the 3rd. person preterite is
also a feature of Tocharian. The paradigm *-h2a, *-tha,
*-0-s, 3pl. *-r.-s can surely be reconstructed for PIE, as
it wouldn't have arisen twice independently in Anatolian and
in Tocharian (or to quote Jasanoff: "the chances of the same
scenario having played itself out twice, once in Anatolian
and once in Tocharian, are virtually nil").

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