Re: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

----- Original Message -----

From: elmeras2000

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 10:13 AM

Subject: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

I take the liberty to move this thread from Nostratic-L to Cybalist
where it belongs more properly as it has been progressing.

Jens

--- In Nostratic-L@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@......> wrote:
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: elmeras2000<mailto:jer@......>
>   To: Nostratic-L@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nostratic-
L@yahoogroups.com>
>   Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:17 AM
>   Subject: [Nostratic-L] Re: PIE *de:-, 'bind'
>
>
>  >   Patrick wrote:
>   Well, we are still not quite together on this.
>
>   I regard the *-i of the primary endings as this same formant, *-
y; durative rather than present. Present (or future or gnomic
present) is there by default when the augment is *e- (*?e, 'that')
is _not_ employed. But I know your view was Lehmann's, and I respect
him immensely.

The status of the *-i of the primary endings and that of the suffix
*-ye/o- of the durative aspect ("present-stem") marker is of course
not the same, and I can see no point in identifying them
etymologically. Their functions are not the same either: The *-ye/o-
is also present in the imperfect, which does not have present-tense
meaning; conversely, the *-i is never present in the imperfect
despite its durative meaning. Therefore, *-ye/o- is durative, and *-
i is present-tense, and the two should be kept as distinct as all
good IE-ists do.

***

Patrick writes:

 

You are absolutely right. I grabbed a copy of Krahe, who begins listing present tense forms right after he illustrates the imperfect tense inflection, and a quick look produced 2+2=5.

 

If the *-i does not occur in the imperfect, it is unsupportable to regard it as durative.
 

I apologize for wasting your time with speculation based on imperfect recollection.

***

 

<snip>
 
>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   There are very few that even could be *CVy- as we both know. And
you are industriously trying to take those few away from me. But, I
would say, of those you mention above, *^kley-, 'lean', is a good
candidate as a durative extended stem of *k^el-, 'incline'.
>
>   Semantically, it works, does it not? But, as I think I mentioned
many postings ago, and if not, I should have, these very early
duratives were lexicalized so that they were no longer 'felt' as
duratives. That made other means to express durative mandatory: some
reduplication, *-i, and a variety of others. The same same happened
to *CVw-, which was, I thing, originally frequentative, interpreted
as perfective.

Where do you actually find "*k^el- 'incline'"? This is supposed to
be an empirical science, not a game where you can just imagine
things. To keep my interest, you should now point to some actual
material that points in the direction you say: What observations
convinced you that this is as you say?

 

***

Patrick writes:

 

You really gave me a start. I thought: have I trusted to memory again and made a blooper? or misinterpreted something?

 

Thank goodness, on page 552 of Pokorny's Volume I, I thankfully read:

 

"2. k^el-, 'neigen"

 

AHD has it on page 1522 as "kel-6. To lean, tilt"

 

Pokorny has a good half page of derived forms so there seems little realistic doubt as to its existence. He also notes: "Basis der viel reicher entwickelten Wurzelf. ^klei-, 'lehnen' (s. unten)".

 

If I felt it necessary to reconstruct a form that Pokorny or some recognized authority did not acknowledge, rest assured, that I would identify it as such.

 

Whether you wish to question Pokorny's choice to list it or not, I did not "just imagine things". And, I promise you, I will not if I can avoid it.

***

>   When PIE started forming roots in *CVC, any *CVC that reflected
an earlier stem extension of a *CV root, would have been
lexicalized, and redefined as an aorist/injunctive.

And what is *that* statement based on?

***

Patrick writes:

 

The extraordinary lengths to which IE seems constrained to form presents.

 

And, the root-aorist.

 

This is not only a pattern in IE but also in Sumerian, where durative/present notice require endings not needed for the aorist/past.

 

Same for Egyptian: the oldest and simplest sDm=f form is a past narrative.

 

And theoretically, also. I believe that nouns preceded verbs as a category in all these languages.And in all these languages, si gular is unmarked, which ties into a punctual (aorist) verb simple form.

***

 

 

<snip>
>   ***
>   Patrick wrote:
>
>   Nor will I; I did not assert that *-men/*-mN was restricted to
statives.


Oh? Well, fair enough then. But then again, why would the -H1- of
*deH1-mn. 'band' be a stative marker, if all other forms of the root
also have the /H1/, and other men-formations just have the root
before the men-suffix without any predeliction for a stative marking?

***

Patrick writes:

 

It would make my life a lot simpler if things were as neatly consistent as you seem to expect.

 

For these pre-Nostratic roots, I think the only formant that could explain *H in most cases is *?a, stative.

 

However, having former a stative, the root was redefined as *CVC in PIE so that *deH- (and *daH-, etc.) were only felt as statives selectively; and became lexicalized. Under those circumstance, a *CVH- root was regarded as full par with another root that might be *CVr-, *CVn-, *CVl-, using other (originally) formants, or *CVbh-.

 

One has only to look at Slavic to realize that inflection has been heaped on weakened inflection heaped on weakened inflection.

***

 

<snip>

 

>   >   ***
>   >   Patrick writes:
>   >
>   >   Well, perhaps someone else on the list knows about di:ná.
>
>
>   Okay, we don't have to give up so soon. Mayrhofer's Etym.Wb.
derives
>   di:ná- 'scarce' from the root of dyáti 'part, separate', if not
>   without reservation. The question is only if one of the other da:
(y)-
>   roots has occasionally made its PPP like this instead of having
diná-
>   or ditá-. There can be no doubt that di:ná- is NOT the
participle
>   form that goes with da:(y)- 'bind', which forms ditá-. It
therefore
>   has no place here.
>
>   ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   Not sure I can agree. To me, it does not matter is di:ná is a *-
no participle or not, only that it is an example of a zero-grade of
*deHy-. Does Mayrhofer hazard a guess as to what it means?

The word means 'scarce', and that is not a guess. BTW what's the
problem *here*? You posit *diH- here, right? That means you have
both elements, /h/ and /y/, present in the original form, just as I
say these roots always do. This looks like a point of agreement
(except for the likely fact that the word does not belong to this
root, but to a different one of comparable structure).

***

Patrick writes:

 

You see the source of my error; and I acknowledge it as such.

 

I saw 'scarce' and assumed incorrectly that you were referring to its distribution rather than its meaning. I also grant that with this meaning, di:ná- is surely to be derived from *daHy-.

 

But as you point out, *-no would produce an identical form from *deHy-.

 

Also, Pokorny was no man's fool, would he not recognize as I instantly do, the the semantics most logically connect this form with *daHy-?

 

Could there be another di:ná- with a meaning appropriate to *deHy-? Perhaps not. That would be a smudge on Pokorny's sleeve, would it not?

 

Please do not think I resist any agreement merely to be perverse or obstinate. I would like very much to find ponts of agreement.

 

But respectfully, I think you have forgotten the purpose for which di:ná was introduced into the discussion.

 

If di:- represents the zero-grade of *deHy-, and I grant that it does, and that is why _I_ introduced it, why do we _not_ find it reflected in dyánti, where we expect zero-grade + -ánti? Would not a zero-grade di:- + ánti produce **di(y)ánti?

***

>   The only practical difference here is *da:Hy- vs. *de:Hy-.
Formally, it should make no difference. As for your 'occasional',
certainly it is possible. Among the gods is law; chaos among men.
 

<snip>

<snip> 
 

>   ***
>   Patrick wrote:
>
>   With all due respect, I think that characterization is
exaggerated.
>   ***

In which direction?
 
>
>   > It may be one of those things for which we simply do not have
>   sufficient evidence to make an absolutely secure judgment either
>   way. What do you think? Does that fairly describe it?
>
>   It's nowhere close.
>
>   ***
>   Patrick wrote:
>
>   'Fraid you'd say that.

It's up to you to give a different impression if you want us to
have that. You can't just say that you wished there were evidence to
show that the alleged zero-grade alternants of *deH1y- point to *di-
and not to the *d&1y- you expect, you ought to point to such
evidence. And when informed that "-&y-" just never occurs
unambiguously in Indo-European, you ought to do better than insist
on some ambiguous reconstructions. The world has moved on since
Pokorny who certainly wrote a masterful book, and one that can still
be used today if only one knows how to adjust its information. We do
not do any services to good scholarship if we refuse to face the
very possibility that progress that has been achieved since the
publication of a handbook half a century old. Since I am the author
of some of the analyses and rules that are claimed to be instances
of real progress in the present matter I of course ought to show
some restraint in evaluating them. But I cannot accept that they are
being brushed aside to make way for alternatives that are based on
no serious evidence at all.

***

Patrick writes:

 

On your first point, di:ná- points to a zero-grade form of *da/eHy- so I have demonstrated that.

 

And, in Old Indian at least, it is *di:- before consonants.

 

Of course, in dyáti, we need a zero-grade before a vowel. First, we might ask why we want a zero-grade here. In dyánti we expect zero-grade; in the third person singular, we normally expect full-grade, is that not correct?

 

I would be very interested to know why that is not the case in the third person singular if you have a good idea.

 

We have the form Old Indian gáyati, 'sings', from *geHy-. This seems to me to be the natural response of *CVHy- to a thematic third person singular. Why is it different?

 

Now I have _repeatedly_ asked you why we see an apparent zero-grade in the third person singular form and you seem to be avoiding an answer. Why is that?

 

Progress is in the eye of the beholder, is it not? I think that progress would constitute looking beyond PIE to Nostratic and earlier. You do not. Am I seeing the future or only my own reflection in the mirror? Only time will tell.

 

If I did not respect you immensely, I would not be participating in this discussion with you.

 

I absolutely deny that my alternatives are based on "no serious evidence at all".

 

 

Patrick

***

 

 

 

 

Jens








------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/GP4qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/