On 05-02-27 00:51, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> 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).
A suggestion: If this *-e was a clitic incorporated into the
inflectional ending at a relatively late date, this might explain the
ablaut of the perfect without ad hoc tricks like "the *kWetwóres" rule.
Supposing that the original stative was *bHébHor-, the accent would have
been shifted to the *o when an unaccented enclitic followed, yielding
*bHebHór#e > *bHebHór-e. In plural forms with final stress, such as
*bHebHr.-mé, the underlyingly accented inflection "stole" the accent
from the stem (on the analogy of such forms as *gWHn.-mé- or *h1i-mé-).
These forms, modelled on other parts of the verb system, arose so late
that the reduplication vowel remained as *e and stress was not retracted
from the final syllable.
> 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?
More or less. There's an idea I've been toying with for a long time, and
perhaps the time is ripe for sharing it here. The late Polish linguist
Adam Weinberg once suggested, as an obiter dictum in a handbook of IE
morphology, that there may have been an early form of "perfect
participle" -- a verbal adjective based on the bare reduplicated stem
without any suffixes. His original examples are just two: Hitt. memal
'groats' < substantivised *mé-ml.h2 (or *mé-mo:l?) 'that has been
ground', , and Lat. memor 'mindful, that reminds one (of sth.)';
Weinberg connects the latter with *(s)mer- 'remember'. I wouldn't
however exclude the analysis of <memor> as *mé-mr. (a variant of
*mé-m(o)n- with final rhotacism), connecting it directly with the root
*men- and <memini:> (and Gk. Memn-o:n, for example). Of course I'm aware
of the "handbook" etymology of <memor> as *me-mn-us-, but how about
something more straightforward?
My own addition to Weinberg's idea is the guess that the inanimate
variant of the adjective originally had a passive meaning while the
animate one was active, and that the perfect itself is a denominal
formation based on this "participle" (cf. the Slavic l-preterite).
Other examples could be proposed, especially of lexicalised
substantivisations, e.g. *dHe-dH(h1)- '(coagulated) milk' (from
*dHeh1i-), perhaps *me-ms- 'meat' (speculatively, from
*meh1-/*met-/*mes- 'cut into portions' [--> 'mete out, measure'], cf.
Skt. masti- 'measuring'). This would open the way for analysing
reduplicated nouns such as *kWe-kWl[h1]-o- as derivatives of "Weinberg
adjectives". The classic perfect participle in *-wot-/-us- could itself
be regarded as one of such secondary formations.
Piotr