--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> Tradition is not as monolithic as all that.
Well, I know, I didn't mean 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.
It is true the s-aorist spreads, and thus many of its examples are
innovations. But the inference that it is entirely an innovation and
did not exist at all in the protolanguage does not follow from that.
It is apparently a widespread belief. But it is like saying that the
object cannot have been in the accusative in PIE because that is the
productive system and therefore must be an innovation. Some things
just live longer than others. I see no basis for the assumption that
the sigmatic aorist was not of PIE date. On the contrary I see a
good many indications that it has existed earlier in the branches
that do not show it too willingly, and also that some of its
morphology has been processed by phonetic changes which cannot well
be assumed to have operated after the split-up of the family.
I do not *know* that the -s of the Hittite 3sg preterite of the hi-
conjugation has been taken from the s-aorist, but it seems the
easiest guess if it is phonetically possible at all. If it cannot be
from *-s-t it may show that the 3sg of the s-aorist just ended in *-
s in PIE already (whether from earlier **-s-t or not), but that
would not change much. Even if it has a totally different source it
still does not follow that the rest of the hi-conjugation is not
based on the perfect.
I also think that the productivity of the s-aorist would make it
*more* probable that the unexpected -s in the closest match of the
perfect does come from that source. It would mean that some of that
productivity belonged to PIE already.
> 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.
I fail to see the basis. I am not sure I understand the perspective
either: is it meant to reflect 3sg **-t : **-t-i vs. 3pl **-ent : **-
ent-i with word-final change **-t > *-s and **-nt > *-r?
> >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]).
(You mean ToB). No, it would imply that the middle forms are not
from the perfect, which is not a problem if they are derived from
the s-aorist. Still, I do not think that a perfect middle, though
innovative, did not exist in PIE.
Jens