Re[2]: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

At 7:39:58 PM on Saturday, May 14, 2005, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elmeras2000<mailto:jer@...>
> To:
> cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

> --- In
> cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>,
> "Patrick Ryan" <proto- language@...<mailto:language@...>...>
> wrote:

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

> There are many exceptions. In fact, the statement is nowhere near
> correct: *h1es- 'be', *h1ey- 'go', *bheH2- 'speak; shine', *ses-
> 'sleep', *sep- 'attend to', *yeH2- 'go', *wek^- 'wish', *tekW-
> 'run', *k^ey- 'lie' and no doubt others do form well-established
> root presents. I count in the index of LIV 130 secured or suggested
> root presents, 19 of which are from roots of the minimal structure
> CVC.

> For root aorists, I count 600, 76 being from minimal roots.
> Thus, most roots just are punctual, and so of course there are also
> more punctual roots made from any given structure that one might be
> interested in (for whatever reason). But actually the percentage of
> CVC roots is lower among the aorists than among the presents, viz.
> 12.6 versus 14.6. Now that does not make me go crazy and claim the
> opposite, for there is no reason to assume that this has any reason
> associated with the root structures at all. Why would there be an
> absolutely equal distribution at all? Most other things are not
> equally big, why would these two groups be?

> ***
> Patrick writes:

> First off, could you tell me what LIV is? It looks
> like a very valuable reference work.

Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre
Primärstammbildungen. Unter der Leitung von Helmut Rix und
der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel,
Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, Brigitte Schirmer. Wiesbaden
1998; an extended and corrected edition, Wiesbaden, 2001.

> As we both know, each root deserves its own scrutiny
> so my remarks should be interpreted cum grano salis.

> Let us start first with your root aorists. Of 600,
> you report 76 *CVC's. Assuming you and I would both agree
> on exclusions, let us consider the count of 130 root
> presents, of which you report 19 have CVC.

> If we ignore the *CVC requirement for a moment, a
> *CVC is 461% more likely to be a root aorist than a root
> present.

Nonsense; you fail to take into account that there are far
more root aorists in the first place. In fact, as Jens
already noted, 76/600 is 12.7%, and 19/130 is 14.6%, so a
*CVC roots are actually slightly *more* common amongst root
presents.

> I believe, prima facie, that proves my contention; namely,
> that a *CVC root without any excluded markings, will be
> punctual.

No, it merely shows that root aorists are more common than
root presents irrespective of root structure.

> If we take the strictly *CVC counts, 19 vs. 76, we
> get 400%; rather consistent with the percentage (461%)
> indicated by all forms.

Precisely. And this means that the *CVC structure is
irrelevant.

[...]

Brian