From: nathrao
Message: 36539
Date: 2005-03-01
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
[...]
> Still, I found some 15 cases where a primary s-aorist and a
> ske-present are made from the same root (against 38 cases of
> root aorist + ske, as expected).
>
> I noticed a tendency for these cases to have a root
> structure CeC, and especially CeH:
>
> (stop) *weg^h-, *tres-, *tep-, *prek^-; (resonant) *men-,
> *ghWer-; (laryngeal) *(s)neh2-, *peh2(i)-, *mneh2-, *yeh2-,
> *g^neh3-.
IIRC, many of these make other presents (e.g., wegh^ has thematic, men
has nasal present) and other aorists as well (men has root aorist).
Why should we believe that the sk^e-present vs s-aorist is the
original opposition?
[I have a more fundemental question: Why should we believe that PIE
had a >binary< 'perfective' vs 'imperfective' opposition (rather than
a large number of derivational processes, some of which led to
meanings compatible with progressive sense, some not)?. Miguel knows
my objections. Others are referred to the archives of the IE list
available at http://www.linguistlist.org (look for subjects such as
momentary-durative, root presents, aorist etc). I am afraid that I
don't time to restate all of that now.]