Re: [tied] primary endings

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

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 6:59 AM

Subject: [tied] primary endings

 <snip>

I proposed this some time ago, but no one has shot it down to my
satisfaction:

The *-i of the primary endings is not a hic-et-nunc particle, but just
a hic particle, ie. it is the locative case ending. That's because
what we think of as finite verbs in the secondary endings are actually
verbal nouns; the secondary endings *-m, *-s, *-t are 'at me', 'there'
(< *so), 'there' (< *to), respectively (now we know why the two last
ones are somtimes confused. The subordinate clauses, in which the
secondary endings appear, are therefore non-finite clauses with verbal
nouns (cf. Finno-Ugric languages).


 ***

Patrick writes:

 

I think that is a suggestion with some merit.

 

I have speculated elsewhere that the perfect sentence was equational:

 

wood = cut thing (X) - OV - the wood has been cut (by X)

 

and conversely, the imperfect sentence, the verb was equational with the ergative subject, expressed or not expressed:

 

wood cutting(=X) - the wood is being cut (by X, the cutting person)

 

Our familiar polarity between nomina actionis and nomina agentis.

 

 

In Sumerian, the ergative subject has -e; if the transitive action is imperfect, I.e. durative (marû), the verb has -e.

 

 

Two comments on the balance.

 

It may be that *-y _never_ signified durative per se but was always purely just a differentiator based on the idea that a perfect is primary, an imperfect secondary.

 

That could mean that the *-I of primary endings is identical to the *ey- of duratives; bpth are merely differentiating not conveying 'present' or 'duration' explicitly.

 

That could mean that in *CVy- roots, the *-y is just differentiating a semantic nuance, e.g. inanimate activity vs. animate activity: 'fall apart' vs. 'take apart'.  

 

This is probably the same formant with locative *-I.

 

When we say "the Chicago (adj.) airport", "the airport of Chicago", "the airport at Chicago", we are saying virtually the same thing.

 

The differentiator, *-y, forms adjectives.

 

Verbal *-s, *-t, has the same ultimate origin as *so and *to. *so is clan-member; *to is tribe-member.

Social distance is being equated with speech situation distance. In this scheme, *so is second person and closer, hence can be nominative; *to is third person and less close, hence non-nominative.

 

Good thought, Torgen

 

 

Patrick

***