Re: [tied] Stative Verbs, or Perfect Tense

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 13:24:38 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>>
>> Another problem is that this presupposes reduplication in
>> the stative, but the Hittite hi-conjugation (and isolated
>> forms like *wóid-h2a) lacks it. How to explain the
>> o/e-Ablaut in Hittite (or even outside Hittite: e.g. Lith.
>> málti vs. Slav *melti)?
>
>I think this is the core of the matter, so if other theories can
>account for that they should be better. I think this reflects the IE
>intensive, the Vedic type várvarti, várvrtati from IE *wr-wórt-ti,
>*wér-wrt-nti. From *melH- 'grind' this gives *ml-mólH-ti, *mél-mlH-
>nti. The Balto-Slavic continuations *ma:l-/*me:l- will be the direct
>reflexes of the accented part of each allomorph, producing exactly
>the paradigm *mólH-/*mélH- postulated by Jasanoff.

Reduplication is practically unknown in Slavic (I can only
think of dad- "give" and (Im-)e-om- > jIma~m- "have"), which
I suppose can be interpreted as a sign that reduplication
was simply eliminated across the board. In Hittite,
however, Jasanoff has me convinced (pqpf. wewakk-) that this
canot be the whole story there.

Incidentally, I find your 3pl. *mél-mlH-nti (and Jasanoff's
*mélH-nti, I suppose) incongruent with both of yours
derivation of the present forms of BS ê/i-verbs (ultimately
based on 3pl. -inti). The o-grade verbs in Slavic have
either -e- (bo``doN, bodetI', bodoNtI', a.p. c) or -je-
(borjoN', bo'rjetI, bo'rjoNtI, a.p. b), but never -i-.


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