Re: [tied] Stative Verbs, or Perfect Tense

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:20:35 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>It does not demand that much of a good reason to try and invent a
>way to preserve the morphological system pointed to by the IE
>branches whose diachronic interpretation is so much easier.
>
>There are several options for that, even before one begins to
>disqualify tradition.

Tradition is not as monolithic as all that. The concept of
the s-aorist as a relatively recent innovation, spreading
from a central area but never reaching peripheral languages
like Anatolian, Tocharian, Germanic or Armenian (which does
have a *sk^e-aorist) has been voiced by many.

>If Anatolian and Tocharian left the old unity
>together there are no problems at all, for then whatever
>correspondences one does not want to ascribe to chance can have
>occurred in a common period and only once. If one does not want to
>consider that or has reasons to reject it, one can find some
>consolation in the differences they do present: For Tocharian one
>need only assume that the inflection of the s-aorist began to assume
>the endings of the perfect, but did not extend that process to the
>3sg and the middle voice, which would not be unnatural at all. For
>Anatolian one need only assume that the lack of marking of the 3sg
>of the perfect made the corresponding form of the s-aorist
>preferable in the long run. I cannot consider the superficial
>correspondence that the 3sg is then found with an /s/ in the
>continuation of the perfect in two languages (in Toch. in the only
>continuation, in Anatolian only in one of its tenses) so dramatic
>that it demands the suggested recasting of the history-book.

What I see (and apparently Cowgill had the same thought
before me) is a more interesting pattern than just 3sg. *-s.
I also see 3pl. *-(e)r-s.

>> Still,
>> if -s- was already an aspect marker in PIE, it's strange
>> that it would have disappeared, except for phonetic reasons
>> (the Latin development, where perfect endings are added on
>> top of the -s- is more plausible, other things being equal).
>
>Anatolian has obliterated the present/aorist dichotomy completely.
>So has Germanic. I really cannot regard the creation of the s-aorist
>as a post-fission innovation, seeing that it has Narten ablaut which
>is otherwise only found in archaic ruins, and also because of its
>relationship with the sk-presents which most of all looks like
>something that cuts back to a time we cannot otherwise reach.
>
>> Tell-tale archaisms (like Slavic dastU, bystU) seem to be
>> missing from the Hittite hi-past: the 2sg. (3sg.) ending
>> -sta (as if from s-aorist *-s + perfect *-th2a) is
>> _Neo-Hittite_ (so it must really be analyzed as mi-past 2sg.
>> -s plus hi-past -ta, c.q. 3sg. hi-past -s + 3sg. mi-past
>> -t(a)). In Tocharian, if the active and the middle both go
>> back to fully sigmatic forms, why was -s- preserved in the
>> middle and not in the active, outside the 3sg.?
>
>It is often claimed that the perfect did not use a middle voice on a
>regular basis.

That might also imply then that the Tocharian preterite
middles aren't inherited at all, but new formations. As
such, they may have been based on the characteristic 3sg.
preterite active form *-s-a: (which also appears to have an
added -a: [ToA preksa]).

>But even if it did, its forms would be under no
>obligation to invade the s-aorist also.
>
>> It's not as
>> if the Tocharian class III middles continue the s-aorist
>> middle in pristine form: for one thing, they have added
>> -a:-.
>
>Yes, after the -s-. That looks like ending conglomerates segmented
>off from the root aorist of set.-roots.
>
>Still, the accent of the prt. III middle seems to often reflect
>reduplication, so maybe this is not som simple.

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