From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36546
Date: 2005-03-01
>A few of them make only a sk^e-present. sk^e-presents are
>
>--- 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 PIEIf my analysis is correct, what I'm talking about this time
>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.]