Re: [tied] Stative Verbs, or Perfect Tense

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:38:30 +0100 (CET), Jens Elmegaard
Rasmussen <jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>[JER:]
>> >What is the evidence for a 3pl *-s? The isolated Avestan pluperfect
>> ><ciko:it&r&s^> ?
>
>[MCV:]
>> Yes, and Vedic -ur.
>
>It is crucial to this argument (but not to the opposition) that -ur can
>only continue a form *-r-s containing an *-s. Is that sure? Do we know
>that forms like Ved. ú:dhar, áhar reflect *-r. and not a levelled
>full-grade stem *-er (or *-or)? I do not exclude the possibility that *-r.
>gave Vedic -ar, which is a fine and very intelligent suggestion, but still
>only that. If it is true, then the Vedic ending -ur of the 3pl of the
>perfect continues a form in *-r.-s. However that cannot be said about the
>corresponding Avestan form which is -ar&.

That is from *-r.

There has been a natural tendency to syncretize the 3pl.
endings inherited from the proto-language. Most languages
retain only *-ént (or its thematic counterpart *-ont),
properly the ending of the imperfect. A few languages have
retained the r-endings of the stative (*-r.), of the active
aorist (*-é:r, *-r.s) or of the stative aorist (*-r.s), but
generally not all of them. Vedic has generalized -ur <
*-r.s, Latin and Hittite *-é:r, etc. The same has happened
in the middle, where *-nto- has fared better than *-ro-.

>So, even with Vedic showing
>constant *-r.-s and Avestan showing *-r.-s in the isolated pluperfect
>case, we do not get solid evidence that the precursor of the Hittite
>hi-conjugation contained an *-s. And even if it did, we do not know that
>the hi-conjugation does not continue the perfect.
>
>> >I find no s-marking in the 3pl of the hi-conjugation
>>
>> Of course there is: *-er-s > *-e:r (I don't need to
>> duplicate the argumentation in Jasanoff p. 33).
>
>I cannot see an *-s in this. Sure, it was an *-s that lengthened the vowel
>of Hitt. hasterz 'star' from *H2sté:r (+ added -s),

I fail to see the relevance. The -s in the Hittite word is
secondary (there's also haste:r "star"), the /e:/ was long
to begin with, and stressed /e/ would have given /e:/ in any
case, whether -s followed or not, and whether it was
originally long or not.

>but I do not find room
>for an *-s in either ker 'heart' or per 'house' which are neuters.

Yes, there's no -s there. Again I fail to see the
relevance.

>There
>is also the problem that, if *-e:r is from older *-er-s, one would expect
>the unaccented variant to be *-o:r.

I wouldn't. I'd expect the unaccented variant of *-ént to
be *-n.t, and the unaccented variant of *-érs to be *-r.s,
which is exactly what we find.

>> > or in the Toch. prt. III.
>
>> -ar/-är can reflect either -r. or -r.s
>
>Yes, but the s-interpretation is a choice, not a fact. This is not evidence.

You presented it as counterevidence, which it isn't.

>> >> >I do not think so. For one
>> >> >thing, the two languages disagree fundamentally in the middle
>> >voice
>> >> >which has a pervasive -s- in Tocharian, but nothing of the sort
>> >in
>> >> >Anatolian.
>> >>
>> >> There is no -s- in Anatolian. Tocharian has non-sigmatic
>> >> o-grade middles in the _intransitives_ that make an
>> >> "s-preterit" (Toch A. nakät, tsakät, etc.). Tocharian B has
>> >> sigmatized these, but with retained o-grade. The
>> >> _transitives_ are sigmatic in Toch. A & B. Vedic has
>> >> s-middles, with e-grade, everywhere. The original situation
>> >> is thus preserved in Anatolian.
>> >
>> >I find this incoherent. It is crucial to your argument that the
>> >Tocharian s-less middle forms continue the same category as those
>> >having -s-, only in a more original shape. But is that the truth?
>> >The verbs concerned all form thematic presents in Tocharian and
>> >elsewhere (Ved. nas'a-, daha-, paca-; reflected in the Toch.
>> >subjunctive, B nke-, tske-, pke-, identical with Vedic dáha:ti,
>> >paca:ti).
>>
>> As Jasanoff notes, nketär etc. are _middle_ subjunctives, so
>> they can't be identical with active thematic forms.
>
>I was talking about the stem; the forms are identical with the middle
>forms of the subjunctive appearing in Vedic. I see no good reason to
>separate them from Brugmannian tradition.
>
>> >Now, if that represents a displaced root-aorist
>> >subjunctive, the original aorists of these verbs were root-aorists.
>> >It seems to me to be the easiest solution that these are indeed
>> >archaic remains, however not from a putative proto-hi-conjugation,
>> >but from the original root aorist. Where the root aorist was not
>> >retained it was replaced by the productive sigmatic aorist. Much of
>> >that replacement belongs to PIE already. For the verbs concerned
>> >Vedic reflects pervasive -s- in páks.at, adha:k, but Tocharian
>> >apparently restricted the renewal to the active. Now the decisive
>> >question is: Is the vocalism of A nakät, tsakät that of the old
>> >middle-voice forms, or has it copied that of the sigmatic forms
>> >which is the same? The partly sigmatic structure of preterite III is
>> >easily derived from a blend of the perfect and the s-aorist because
>> >IE *-o- and *-e:- merged in Tocharian.
>>
>> Except for palatalization. The preterite ñakäs, ñakär has
>> *e:, the midle nakät, nakänt has *o. So much is clear.
>
>There are many cases of analogical palatalization and depalatalization in
>Tocharian.

But clearly not here. If the forms were analogical, they
would not be different from each other.

>> >> The s-aorist is derived from the Anatolian/Tocharian
>> >> s-preterite by replacing the stative endings *-h2a, *-th2a
>> >> by *-m, *-s from the active aorist (root aorist), and adding
>> >> *-t to the 3rd. person.
>> >
>> >The earlier existence of a full s-aorist in a prestage of Tocharian
>> >is shown by the present in *-se/o- which are identical with the
>> >Vedic s-aorist subjunctives (váks.at);
>>
>> I don't think this was a normal subjunctive. Subjunctives
>> don't normally make imperatives (-sesi > -si); in Tocharian,
>> indicatives develop into subjunctives, but only the
>> se-subjunctive developed into an indicative present.
>> As a working hypothesis, I'm assuming these forms are
>> related to the precative.

I meant the desiderative.

>>More later.
>
>According to Delbrück's account in Altindische Syntax 308-10 the
>imperative-like

But the imperatives in -si are not "imperative-like". They
*are* imperatives, synchronically.

>use is quite a normal function of the second person of the
>subjunctive. You are apparently unwilling to consider some of the
>evidence: If Tocharian thematic presents (prs. II) quite regularly go with
>preterite I, the continuation of the root-aorist, that to me looks like
>satisfactory evidence that the subjunctive of the root-aorist could become
>a present indicative.

Perhaps thematic presents come from old subjunctives, but
that belongs to a wholly different stage, and is was over
and done before the break-up of IE. I was referring to
subjunctives that were subjunctives in late PIE.

>The precative is in my interpretation based on the 2sg optative used as
>stem ("pivotal point" Watkins-style) marking the note of begging.
>
>> >these forms have retained
>> >their subjunctive value in Vedic, but have been refunctioned into
>> >presents in a telling repetition of the genesis of the thematic
>> >present from root-aorist subjunctives.
>>
>> >>
>> >> We then have:
>> >>
>> >> *-m
>> >> *-s
>> >> *-s-t
>> >> ..
>> >> *-rs
>> >
>> >I do not see that. What I see is
>> >
>> >*-s-m
>> >*-s-s
>> >*-s-t
>> >*-s-me
>> >*-s-te
>> >*-s-nt
>>
>> 3pl. *-s-rs, actually. I explained below where these form
>> come from.
>
>I still do not see that.

The s-aorist has 3pl. -ur in Vedic, never -an. That should
count for something.

>> >The 1.2.3.sg have lengthened grade, and the form of the 3pl (Gk. -
>> >san) reflects acrostatic ablaut; so does a middle form like Ved. 1sg
>> >ámam.si, Avest. m&:n.ghi: 'I thought' from *mén-s-&2. I find it very
>> >hard to account for the last-mentioned form if the middle voice of
>> >the s-aorist is supposed not to have existed at the time of the
>> >phonetic operation of the ablaut.
>>
>> The synchronic 1sg. middle ending is -i. I don't know where
>> it comes from.
>
>It fits the full-grade form -a like a glove: accented *-H2é > *-H2á,
>unaccented *-H2 > *-&2.

I know, but the problem is that there are no other
unaccented forms anywhere else in the middle (1pl/du -mahi
and -vahi could easily be analogical after 1sg. -i).

In any case, the ending is -i for _all_ middle pasts, so I
would find it very hard to account for ámam.si if it had
anything *else* than the ending -i.

>> >> which becomes by a simple analogy:
>> >>
>> >> *-s-m
>> >> *-s-(s)
>> >> *-s-t
>> >> ..
>> >> *-s-rs
>> >>
>> >> This scenario was played out once, in the core IE languages
>> >> that have an s-aorist.
>> >
>> >This is superfluous if the s-aorist was already there in the
>> >protolanguage from which they all come.
>>
>> It's clear to me that it wasn't.
>
>The clarity with which you see that things I see are not there has yet to
>be imparted on me by the use of solid arguments. Until such time I see no
>reason to change my opinion.

I know.

>> The process that produced the s-aorist out of an older
>> system where only the 3rd. person had *-s is not only well
>> attested in Hittite and Tocharian, but is parallelled
>> exactly by the development of the Old Irish t-preterite,
>> from 3sg. *-t.
>
>No such process is "attested" in Hittite or Tocharian: it has merely been
>suggested, which does not amount to attestation. It is only "parallelled"
>by the Old Irish developments if it has a similar background; it may as
>well not have, in which case it is not parallelled by it. It is often
>forgotten in the euphory that most things are not parallel.
>
>> I'm not aware of anything parallel to a scenario where a
>> verbal (aspect) marker present in all personal forms is lost
>> everywhere except in the 3sg. Let alone for this to have
>> happened twice independently.
>
>That is not a completely fair description of the situation as it would be
>seen under the traditional doctrine. The aspect marker is then not lost
>everywhere in Tocharian except in the 3sg; it is retained all through the
>middle voice, and incidentally no one can see it is not present in the 2sg
>also.
>
>If you were willing to separate the two events from each other you could
>use any of them as a parallel for the other one, showing that such a
>reduced retention is indeed possible. If you cannot find a super-parallel
>showing that precisely what is common to the two events has also
>co-occurred elsewhere, does it really matter? Can't we just accept it
>here? May the way one language reduces its verbal system not have
>similarities with the way another one does the same and still be
>independent? In my eyes this looks like a pseudoproblem which has been
>formulated to justify a novel explanation of a set of facts that is
>already perfectly well explained by existing doctrines.
>
>In Modern Greek the imperfect and aorist use the endings -a, -es, -e,
>-ame, -ate, -an. In this the 2/3 sg are thematic, while the rest have the
>-a- of the aorist. In Old Church Slavic the aorist has thematic endings in
>the 2/3 sg, as tec^e, tec^e 'ran, flowed', while the other persons are
>sigmatic, either 1sg têxU, pl. têxomU, têste, tês^eN, or 1sg tekoxU, pl
>tekoxomU, tekoste, tekos^eN. Here one could say: Where else do we find
>retention of an unmarked stem only in the 2/3 sg

You know that's exact opposite of what I was saying.

>, while the rest of the
>paradigm has acquired a marking? And how on earth could that happen twice?
>There must be a connection, and let's begin our rewriting of the
>morphology of the IE verb by accepting this Mischparadigma as the original
>situation. It seems to me that this is what is being done to IE now.

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