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

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

From: elmeras2000

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 5:51 PM

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

 

<snip>

 
Aha! I was not aware of that. This could indeed be construed as a
case of an extended root. But you still have not shown that the
final consonant of *k^ley- adds a durative note. The short root
*k^el-, if it really exists, is not known to form underived verbs,
so we can't know whether it would be a root aorist or a root
present. For *k^ley- we know it forms a root aorist in blatant
conflict with your claims.

***

Patrick writes:

 

Old Indian Sráyati, 'leans', suggests durative for the *-y to me. Do you disagree?

 

*k^el- is interesting, is it not? It looks like it has no attested root present or root aorist, and instead is building its inflection with -*to, which I know as a future/prospective formant.

 

Barring a final *-H or *-y, I assume that any *CVC root in PIE is aorist (though there will probably be the apparent exception).

 

I think the more productive approach is for me to put this forth as a hypothesis to be tested by your selecting a *CVC root (not ending in *-H or *-y that you believe is demonstrably _not_ aorist.

 

What do you think?

 

I  have temporarily misplaced my Whitney. What is the aorist recorded for *k^lei-, if you do not mind telling me?

 

If rules operated absolutely faultlessly, there would be no need for professors to explain the exceptions.

 

While I do claim that *k^ley- is inherently durative, I do not rule out the possibility that it was lexicalized, and so could form a root aorist.

***

 

>
>   >   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.

I do not even understand the English of that sentence, What do you
mean?

***

Patrick writes:

 

There is no PIE tense that has so many different tense forming devices as the present.

***

 

<snip>

>   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.

Not necessarily so for IE: An unmarked stem is a root aorist only in
the case of roots with inherently punctual semantics; with such
roots the durative ("present stem") must be marked (by
reduplication, nasal infixation, *-ye/o-, or suppletion). If the
semantics of the root is durative in itself, the unmarked root is
used as a root present without any further marking; in that case the
punctual aspect ("aorist") must be marked (by *-s-, reduplication,
or suppletion).

***

Patrick writes:

 

I am sorry to have to doubt that. *pleH-, 'fill, forms a root aorist ápra:t to be sure but the present tense is reduplicated *pel- (píparti) not reduplicated *pleH-.

 

I see nothing inherently aorist in 'pour'.

***

 

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

I do not see the relevance of that statement. What do you mean?

***

Patrick writes:

 

I mean, at an early date, there were _no_ verbs per se/

***

 

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

Why are you so occupied with explaining something which at most does
not demand an explanation at all? All we see is a root having a
total of three consonants; there are many of those, and the fact
that they exist does not pose a problem or call for an analysis.
This is not affected in any essential way by the fact that one or
the other of the consonants of *deH1y- fails to show under special
conditions which are just regular points of neutralization.

 

You need
to demonstrate that some of the material of the root *deH1y- is not
used in forms where it *could* have been present.

 

Only in the case
of a serious demonstration of that kind can I seriously consider
ascribing morphematic status to some of the material appearing in
the longer root form. I have not seen any such demonstration. I have
read and listened to hundreds of attempts at proving such analyses,
but it has been just too pitifully easy to dismantle them.

***

Patrick writes:

 

In my opinion, that is what dyáti does.

***

>
>   However, having formed 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-.

I do not understand these sentences, could you rephrase?

 

***

Patrick writes:

 

Certainly. The original impulse for *CVH (*CV?) was to form a stative of a given *CV root.

 

At the PIE stage, this stative nuance was only selectively felt so that *CVH was generally regarded as a punctual verb just as any other *CVC.

 

*CVbh- constitutes *CV + *bh, a compound; hence a punctual verb root or root noun. *-bh forms no aspectual extension of a verbal root - ever.

 

*CVr-, *CVn-, *CVl- were also lexicalized when, in the majority of cases, they derived from *CV stem modifications like *-H and *-y: *-r, factitive, *-n and *-l, inanimate and animate ingressive. That is not to say that these three could not also occur as genuine compounds as in PIE *del-, 'split', pre-Nostratic *da-l-, 'hand-move back and forth = cut'; Sumerian dal; Egyptian dn.

***

 

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

What are you thinking of in Slavic that makes you say that, and what
relevance does it have here?

***

Patrick writes:

 

The sheer length of the forms.

***

 

>   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-.

I'm afraid that's not safe either. Actually Mayrhofer, following
Kuiper, tentatively derives it from "DAY1" of Ved.
dayate 'zerstören, zerfallen lassen', not with DA:4 'divide' (ava-
dyati) which I posit as *deH2y-. I'm sorry about the hasty report of
what is in fact confusing. The root is "DAY1" is said to be IE
*deyH1- seen also in Gk. deilós 'timid, miserable'. The meanings of
di:ná- given are "spärlich, seicht, nicht tief (Wasser); schwach,
gering". The gloss 'scarce' is the first meaning given by Monier-
Williams. If the root is *deyH1-, its zero-grade should of course be
*diH1- without any problems, and then the word has no connection
with a long-diphthong root.

***

Patrick writes:

 

For our purposes, that really makes no difference to derive it from *da:-, 'liquid, flow'. It just becomes a reason why this entry in Pokorny should be revised to *daH-, *daHy-.

 

I guess you have anticipated my answer. If dayate means 'zerfallen', I would attribute it to a *day-, connected with *daH-; and both of these are connected to 'teilen' in this way.

 

The absolute basal meaning of *da is 'side'. In *daH-, 'liquid', we have the inanimate 'leak, liquidate';'produce something at the side'; with 'divide', we have 'make something to be at the side'.

 

It just struck me that all this suggests *da:nu- is 'glacial melt' since other good words for 'river' exist.

 

So, my choice would be *day- / *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, that 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?

The question has been messed up now to the point that is has lost
its meaning.

 

***

Patrick writes:

 

Sadly, yes.

***

>   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?
>   ***

It might, but doesn't have to, for the rule governing it makes
allowances. In this case it actually does: the single Rigvedic
attestation <adyas> is metrically [adi(y)as], just as you want it to
be. That can certainly not be construed to show that your
expectations are *not* met.
 

***

Patrick writes:

 

Excuse me, but a rule that "makes allowances" is really not much of a "rule".

***

 

  >
>   >   ***
>   >   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.

If you mean that you have demonstrated that di:ná- shows *-&y- with
vocalized laryngeal (schwa) followed by /y/ with which the schwa
forms a diphthong, that just is not correct. Where laryngeals appear
in the environment CHyV, i.e. between a consonant and a
consonantal /y/, the /y/ is vocalized and the laryngeal is kept
consonantal.

***

Patrick writes:

 

I will pass on this. I really do not understand it.

***

 

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

It may sometimes be, but mostly it is /di-/, reflecting IE *dHi-
before voiced consonants, and *d&- before /t/. Forms with /i:/ may
be analogical on the full-grade alternant which has /a:/: The na:-
verbs have active -ná:-ti, middle -ni:-té, reflecting IE *-né-H-ti,
mid. *-n-&-tór.

>
>   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?

That depends on what present type it is. This is a class VI present,
the type tudáti, tudánti. That is generally explained as a
thematicization of an old root aorist.

 

***

Patrick writes:

 

Are you claiming that is what dyáti is?

***
 
>   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?

'Sing' forms the present stem gá:ya- from *géHy-e-. The Sanskrit
root vowel is long.
 
>   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?

Because it is a class VI present stem.

***

Patrick writes:

 

I was aware of tudáti but also what Beekes writes: "There are also present tense forms with zero grade in the root, but it is not cetain whether these go back to PIE."

 

So, it seems, we are back where we started.

 

I am claiming dyáti, Class VI now, which calls for a zero-grade of the root, should be *diyáti if derived from *deHy- (*de6y-) based on the zero-grade di:ná, from whatever it might come, and you introduce the (in my opinion) ad hoc rule that *-6y resolves always to *-y.

 

I have confess to being Austrian German which inclines (*klei-) me to dislike anything ad hoc viscerally. Tut mir herzlich leid.

***

 

***
>   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.

I do indeed see potential progress brought about by looking beyond
into Nostratic, but one cannot "explain" the obscure by obscuring it
even further. If your insight into Nostratic has enabled you to see
rules and connections of an enlightening kind, you should be able to
show us that. One does that by pointing to actual observations and
explaining their relevance. I have not seen you make any attempt at
anything of this nature. Until some sensible-looking evidence is
produced I certainly refuse to give priority to what must appear to
be just empty assertions over the results of enduring and careful
analysis applied to the linguistic material we *can* handle.  
 
>   I absolutely deny that my alternatives are based on "no serious
evidence at all".

Then it's time to produce some. You may talk here.

 

***

Patrick writes:

 

"You may talk here." Jens, you do have a sense of humor!

 

Can you give me any indication of what might constitute 'proof' for any point I have made or attempted to make here?

 

Seriously.

 

 

Patrick

***

Jens




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/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/