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

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 37878
Date: 2005-05-15

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:41 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

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

 
<snip>

>   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 wrote:

>   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
Prim√§rstammbildungen.  Unter der Leitung von Helmut Rix und
der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von Martin K√ľmmel,
Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, Brigitte Schirmer.  Wiesbaden
1998; an extended and corrected edition, Wiesbaden, 2001.
 
***
Patrick writes:
 
Thank you for thr information. I have ordered it and it should be here within two weeks or so.
 
Patrick
***

>   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.
***
Patrick writes:
 
Are you an Hegelian, Brian?
 
In the material world, we go by numbers.
 
Let me put it another way then.
 
Any given *CVC is 76/19ths more likely to be a root aorist than a root present; i.e. 400%.
 
If one ignored the *CVC requirement, any given "root" is 600/130 more likely to be a root aorist than a root present; i.e. 461%.
 
You say that I fail to take into account that there are far more root aorists. That was the point! Have you been unable to follow the discussion?
 
You are confused by the *CVC-factor.
***
    

> 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.
***
Patrick writes:
 
Punctual = aorist. Get it now?
 
For all practical purposes, ther is only one root structure for PIE: *CVC.
***
 

>   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

***
Patrick writes:
 
No, it means that some people prefer to call a root anything which inflects as a root.
 
The concept of root extensions is ignored.
 
I prefer to call a root the least number of consonants in a structure that can convey a meaning semantically.
 
The method of Pokorny.
 
Patrick
***