Re: [tied] Stative Verbs, or Perfect Tense

From: elmeras2000
Message: 36644
Date: 2005-03-04

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> No. It reflects 3rd. person *-s.

I have little quarrel with that. It will have to be very old,
however, and the full paradigm will have to have been based on the
3sg form. And if the aorist -s- is the same element as the -s- of
the present-aspect companion -sk^e/o- that will have to have been
based on the 3sg s-form already. Other cases of a transparent
combination of unmarked aorist cum marked present have *-ye/o- in
the present aspect. Therefore one would like *-sk^e/o- to reflect *-
s- + *-ye/o-. That is of course guesswork, but actually less so than
the identification of the -s- as a third person marker. If there is
any grain of truth to the idea that *-sk^e/o- represents *-s- + *-
ye/o- it has been processed by rules we do not really know from
other material and so would be likely to be very very old. Since a
fully developed ske/o-paradigm is present in Hittite, it would
follow that the s-aorist was also fullæy developed just as in the
other branches.

>[...] I suspect the original
> distribution was:
>
> present-system: *-més(i), *-té, *-ént(i)
> aorist-system: *-mén, *-tér, *-é:r,
>
> but I would need to explain and argument that in a whole
> separate message.

You should write a book about it. I would give it the same attention
I'm aiming to accord Jasanoff's book. We can argue over details on
the list, but you may run into a crediting problem. If you have a
grand theory, you should publish it, so that we know what is yours.
I wish you the best of luck in that endeavour.

Jens