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

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

> I have known of the function of *-y to differentiate, and I am

beginning to suspect that what I have been characterizing
as 'durative', is, on a deeper level merely differentiation. It may
be that, in *k^ley- is an example of differentiation semantically
rather than aspectually.

You do not get much differentiation if *k^ley- 'lean' means the same
as the presumed *k^el- You say: "I pick up more 'incline (towards)'
with *k^el- and more 'lean' ('incline on') with *k^ley-." That is
not much of a difference, especially through this filter.

> I agree that any root, whether original or lexicalized, that is

capable of a root aorist should be preferentially considered
punctual.

That seems to hold, though far from exclusively.

> I do not understand the significance of the subjunctive in your

explanation. Could you explain further?

The aorist subjunctive is used of the imminent future; so are the
aorist injunctive and the present indicative. That constitutes an
obvious point of contact between aorist subjunctive and present
indicative. Thus it is a frequent development away from the system
of unpredictable relations between aorist and present that the old
subjunctive of the aorist is used as a present stem. That is a
process observed in the course of the textual tradition of Old
Indic, and it may well be the ultimate origin of the widespread
type "thematic root present", i.e. the type *bhér-e-ti. In such
cases the transfer is older than the disintegration of the
protolanguage.

> It was from verbs like *k^ley- that I assigned an ingressive

force to *-n.

The ingressive force belongs to the root already in this case. The
root means "bring into a leaning posture", in the middle voice "take
up a leaning posture". The present stem is used if the subject goes
on doing that.

>
> It is interesting to me that you characterize *-n as an infix

rather than a suffix. I consider it a suffix, and that where it
occurs within root boundaries, a result of metathesis.

I worked out a rule whereby an old suffixed -n- becomes an infix by
metathesis that moves it to the position before the final consonant
of the root. It is of interest to our present discussion that long-
diphthong roots in -Hy and roots in -yH are neutralized in that
process, in that both types form n-presents ending in *-i-ne-H-.
Thus the difference in root structure between Thus OIr.
benaid 'strikes' from *bheyH- and denaid 'sucks' from *dheH1y- both
have the -i- before, and the laryngeal after, the n-infix. This must
mean that there was indeed a change from *bheyH-n- and *dheHy-n- to
*bheynH-, *dheynH- with smoothing of the sonority hierarchy before
vowel insertion created the basis for *bhi-né-H-, *dhi-né-H-. So
yes, the -n- was once a suffix.

>
> > *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.

>
> From what material do you "know" that? What "inflection" are you
> talking about? The dental extension seen in PGmc. *haltha-

/*halda-

> 'slanting'? How do you know that is based on the inflection of

a

> verb? And if so, why is the *-to- not just the participle

morpheme?

> There is no -t- in Lith s^alìs 'side'. I can't make anything
> interesting of a combination between *k^el- and *k^ley-. The

fact

> just seems to be that the IE roots are old words that have come

to

> have that form before they were expanded by the suffixal and
> inflectional material of later stages. In principle it might be
> possible to acquire some impression of the functional services
> rendered by the root extensions (of such they are - the short

forms

> could also have lost the material not appearing in them), but if

the

> two variants mean exactly the same, there is nothing to go on.
>

> Patrick writes:
>
> I attribute future/prospective meaning to *-to from Sumerian non-

finite forms in *-ed (really **-et), Egyptian sDm.t=f forms and
sDm.tj=fj forms, and infinitives in *-t.

Do you now? Are you aware that Sumerian and Egyptian are not Indo-
European languages?

> The formant involved with *k^el- is *to, the participial

morpheme.

>
> I think the PIE *-to participle is clearly future-prospective.

And *mr-tó-s 'dead'? How did it assume the function of *past
participle*?

> Meine Mannschaft ringt dennoch unverdrossen weiter nach dem Tor.

Is that the dative of das Tor or of der Tor?

> > Barring a final *-H or *-y, I assume that any *CVC root in

PIE

> is aorist (though there will probably be the apparent

exception).

JER:

> For root aorists, I count 600, 76 being from minimal roots.

That was a wrong count, I'm sorry (I took some columns of 50 words
to contain 100). I now see the count is 409. I have given the
corrected fgures in a separate posting.

> However, I feel that the percentages are even higher. I am

(relatively) sure you are employing your functional definition of a
root rather my analytical one. With a "root" like *stre(n)g-, I
believe you would have counted it in the non-*CVC protion of the
count whereas I probably would have analyzed it as *s-mobile +
euphonic -*- + reg^-, which would have given an additional number.

Of course I would not count *strengh- 'constrict' as a CVC root. I
correct a mistake of yours in passing: I a probably right to read
your "euphonic -*-" to mean "euphonic *-t-". I have seen you operate
with that elsewhere. There is no euphonic -t- between *s- and -r- in
PIE: roots can begin with *sr- and *str-. If by any chance your reg^-
is the root of Latin rego:, German recht and Old Norse
rakr 'upright', you are very mistaken; that root is *H3reg^- (older
actually *H3ryeg^-); that root has a Germanic /k/, whereas the root
of German streng, Eng. strong has a Germanic /g/.

> I am now prepared to admit, on the basis of what you have

demonstrated, that *-y as a final element of *CVy is as likely to be
simply semantic differentiation as to be conveying durative; the
same for, at least, some *CVCy-.

I do not see any differentiation, nor have I seen you proving that
the *-y is an extension at all.

> If we had synchronic data, it might be possible to conclusively

prove, yea or nay, whether *-H, etc. had any effect on the aspectual
orientation of the verb in "roots" as simple as *CVC. We do not so,
although we can discuss interesting possibilities, probably no one
will be convinced.

So you admit that you have just based your analysis on wishful
thinking.

> I will, however, discuss a couple of them briefly.
>
> In the case of *Hey-, 'go', and *k^ey-, 'lie', I am going to

plead that the original differentiation here is durative vs.
punctual: 'set off' against 'go'; 'lie down' vs. 'lie'. Since *CV
roots became impermissible in PIE, the _now_ punctual/durative
roots were re-formed into new duratives with other elements: in the
case of *Hey- (now punctual), with *-to (cf. Old Irish
ethaid, 'goes'), corresponding to Sumerian e3, punctual; ed,
durative; 'go'; Egyptian jj vs. j(j).t, 'go'; highly unusual. I have
no similar "new" durative to propose for *k^ey- at this time.

The roots *H1ey- and *k^ey- only form duratives. They do not even
form derived aorists. What "differentiation" do you see? Between
what and what? The stem-formation of OIr. ethaid is like Latin
ita:re, Umbrian etatu, Gk. itáo:, and iterative formation based on
the participle *H1itó- 'gone'; such forms are in origin factitives
made from the PPP: *H1itaH2-yé-ti 'makes gone', like *newaH2-yé-
ti 'makes new, renews'. The iterative force is in the use of the
collective marker and the durativizing *-ye/o-, not in the *-to-.

> In the cases of *bhaH-, shine', and *yaH-, 'go', I believe we

are dealing with statives: 'shiny, prominent' and 'removed, gone'.
You will have to tell me if you would accept the idea that PIE could
inflect a stative root as a present rather than insist on perfect
inflection.

Funny question. Some roots have a durative meaning, as these
apparently do: 'be shining', 'be in progress'. A stative nuance can
also be made mroe explicit by the addition fo the morpheme *-eH1-.
The perfect is also used to express the state resulting from a
preceding action.

> With *tekW-, 'run', I suspect we may have a Sumerian cognate:

tuh2, 'help'; If this represents pre-Nostratic *tox-, it
means 'approach a large number of times'; I suppose *-xa is a
formant for large indefinite animate plurals. This might produce a
durative. http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ProtoLanguage-
Monosyllables.htm<http://www.geocities.com/proto-
language/ProtoLanguage-Monosyllables.htm>

One use of *tekW- which is assuredly of PIE age is about running
water. I fail to see the obvious connection

> With *hes- 'be', we have a word which has no obvious verbal

cognates in Egyptian or Sumerian. The copula is both languages is
built on *ma:-, 'be active at'. We do have an affirmative js in
Egyptian. Might this be a particle that has been made into a verb,
only in PIE? In which case, no prediction as to durative or punctual
could realistically be made.

Is it not a fact to you that IE *H1es- is *exclusively* used as a
present stem? The aorist is made from *bhuH-.

> I have nothing to suggest for *sep- 'attend to' or *wek^-

'wish'.

>
> I have no information on *ses-, 'sleep'; is this possibly a typo?

No: Ved. sásti, Hitt. seszi 'sleeps'.

> When someone goes to the effort that you obviously have (I have

no reference book that would enable me to do it) to compile such
figures, you deserve sincere thanks; when you, in addition, candidly
report your findings, which do not strengthen your position, you
deserve admiration.

As I counted (wrongly), the results are actually slightly against
your position. *I* do not have a position on the question whether a
root of the structure CVC is more likely to form a root present or a
root aorist, except that I do not believe there is any such
connection at all. With the new corrected counts your position is
slightly improved, but not to the point of being anywhere near
significant. If acrostatic root presents are included among the root
presents the count is even slightly against your claim. Therefore I
can't see why you're making it.

>
> > 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.
> > ***
>
> Why do you keep on using the pseudo-technical word "lexicalized"
> every time a form turns out to be an aorist against out

predictions?

> Lexicalizations are typically retentions of an older state of
> affairs, so in such cases your statements about the original
> situation should work even better.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Perhaps you could suggest a better word to express my meaning.
>
> Obviously, I mean root that has been inflected, and then becomes

a new word including the former inflection, now no longer felt as
such.

I see. It was not obvious to me. One sometimes speaks of fossilized
suffixes, and the term "root extension" or "determinative" commonly
refers to that. However, I do not think we can dissect the IE roots
to that extent very often. You could theoretically be right, and
some roots do of course look like longer, i.e. extended, forms of
others. And it would indeed be interesting to know what the original
function of the added material was. That however should be done on
the basis of clear examples and not just by empty guesses.

> > There is no PIE tense that has so many different tense

forming

> devices as the present.
> > ***

JER:

> There are basically four: (1) Unmarked, i.e. root present, made
> directly from roots whose semantics was durative already. (2)
> Reduplicated, made from aoristic roots expressing actions which

if

> prolonged would involve repetition (*dhi-dhéH1-/*dhé-dH1- "be
> putting several things"). (3) Nasal presents, which were

originally

> causatives, originally used in the middle voice to express a
> roundabout action *k^l-n-u-tór 'is being occasioned to listen,
> listens', OIr. ro-cluinethar). (4) ye/o-presents, apparently

adding

> a durative note to the bare meaning expressed by the root-

aorist:

> *gWm-yé-ti 'is coming' : aor. *e gWém-t 'came'. The inchoative
> sk^e/o-presents which go with s-aorist apparently reflect the

simple

> addition of the *-s- and *-ye/o- the result of which seems to be
> precisely *-sk^e/o-. The thematic present type *bhér-e-ti is in
> origin only the subjunctive of the root aorist; the zero-grade
> thematic of Skt. tudáti is a secondary thematicization of an
> athematic structure, either a root present or a root aorist

(often

> taken to be always from a root aorist, but that seems to be

based on

> a hasty impression of the simple fact that most roots are

aoristic).

> Other types are combinations or special changes that took place

with

> special root structures.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Thank you for the helpful summary.
>
> I notice you left out a few more mentioned by Beekes - perhaps

you disagree with their inclusion as present-forming elements: *-s-
in *k^leu-s-; *-dh- in *pleH-dh-; *-k- in *dheH-k-?

These elements are not restricted to the present stems. In some
sense, though, the stem *k^leu-se/o- actually is a present stem, but
it is quite obviously just the old subjunctive of the sigmatic
aorist turned into a present, from where a new root *k^lews- was
subsequently abstracted. The -k- of Greek éthe:ka is restricted to
the aorist (and perfect téthe:ka), it is only Italic that moves it
into the present of facio: (replacing the old redulicated present
*dhi-dhéH1-ti/*dhé-dhH1-nti). The -th- of Greek plé:tho: also runs
through all forms of the verb, not just the present. Chantraine and
Benveniste found its function to be terminative and so specifically
NOT in keeping with the durative present. I guess it is in reality
IE *-th-, representing the 3sg desinence of the aorist *pleH1-t
which was aspirated after the laryngeal and subsequently generalized
in a variant stem *ple:th- expressing the special connotations of
the old aorist (thus Birgit Olsen, using the rule *-H1/2t- > IE *-th-
of her own making).

> By the way, I think there was basically one causative in PIE:

*y, but interestingly from *¿ rather than *?.

The productive causative had the suffix *-éye/o- added to the root
with o-vocalism. That does not exclude the existence of older
synonyms.

> I believe the nasal presents are old ingressives: 'start to

hear' = 'listen'.

That belief is not correct. As the system is, it is the aorist, in
this case the root aorist *k^léu-t, that would mean that. The
present stem (in the preterite, the imperfect) will be used when the
subject goes on to hear some more.

>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > ***
> > 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-.

Skt. píparti has been shown by Johanna Narten to be a different
verb "bringt hinüber". The reduplicated present is seen in Gk.
pímple:mi.

> >
> > I see nothing inherently aorist in 'pour'.
> > ***
>
> There is if it means to fill water into something which is empty
> before you begin. The function of the aorist is to change the
> situation, while the present aspect elaborates the situation

already

> given. You can't fill a pot without changing the situation -

unless

> you have already filled some of it, in which case the present

stem

> applies when you go on.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Do you deny there is a semantic difference between 'pour'

(durative) and 'fill' (punctual)?

>
> The verb means both, does it not?

Yes, it's the same verb. You 'pour' duratively untill the receptacle
is full (terminative). But you may also suddenly begin to pour, or
change the situation by pouring just a little in a flash, in which
case the aorist would be used of that. What matters is whether the
action changes the situation or stays in it.

> > Patrick writes:
> >
> > I mean, at an early date, there were _no_ verbs per se/
> > ***
>
> I actually agree that the verbs we know are analyzable in terms

of

> original nouns, and their syntax then as that of nominal

sentences.

> That, however, does not exclude the earlier existence of real

verbs

> that have been lost when the nouns took over. A case of this is

sen

> in Modern Indic where the verb has been practically lost and
> replaced by old nominal circumlocutions; that is no valid reason

to

> deny the existence of finite verbs in Sanskrit. As the nominal
> phrases are growing into new verbs in Modern Indic, someone

might

> say that verbs are secondary in comparison with nouns; he would

be

> wrong.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Eureka! I am so glad we can agree on that. It is such an

important part of understanding the whole process.

So we agree now? Fine. However, if you check back, it's not really
what you said.

>
> <snip>
>
> > 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.
> > ***
>
> Again, I don't understand you: *What* does dyáti do which is
> important here? Does dyáti show *absence* of some of the

material of

> *deH1y- under conditions where the absent material would have

been

> retained if it had been present in the first place? You may note
> that the single attestation of the stem in the Rigveda, as I

have

> repeatedly pointed out, shows *presence* of all of its material,

for

> [adias] can only reflect *e-dH1i-e-s. A form without the

laryngeal,

> i.e. ***e-dy-e-s could not vocalize the /y/.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> I love herring, too, only not the red kind.
>
> I continue to believe that dyáti can _only_ be explained as a

retention of *dy- not *dHy-.

Then please tell us why the /y/ of the 2sg imperfect ádyas is
vocalized. Why is this to be read [adiyas]? How can you avoid seeing
the laryngeal here?

Patrick writes:

> >
> > Certainly. The original impulse for *CVH (*CV?) was to form

a

> stative of a given *CV root.
>
> I don't understand that either.
>
> > 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.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Root (CV or CVC) + *H (*?) yields a stative.
> ***
>
> So they marked the stative nuance, but were not really

understood?

> How come *you* understand it so much better? What source of
> information gave you the insight that enabled you to make this

funny

> assessment?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> The clearest indication is Egyptian nfr, 'beautiful', nfr.j, 'be

beautiful'. And, of course, the PIE recognized formant -H1, "express
a situation". It shows up in Sumerian be a few variants of
monosyllabic words in -a.

Well, of that's the clearest indication, it just is not clear.

> > *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.
>
> You're not getting through to me. You are obviously talking

about

> some analysis consisting in dissection of the IE roots that I

have

> never heard of, much less seen the need of myself. I hesitate to

ask

> you to be more specific, but I'm afraid there's no other way. So
> what *do* you mean?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> I will be, hopefully, mercifully brief.
>
> Pre-Nostratic *na means 'one'. It is a singularizer for nouns,

and indicates an initial verbal action (ingressive).

That is not the function of the IE nasal present. It has become so
in Baltic, incomplementary distribution with -sta- from *-sk^e/o-.
The point of departure was factitivs from adjectives like Ved.
dabhnóti 'harm', Hitt. tepnu-zzi 'makes small' from Hitt. tepu-
'small', Ved. dabhrá- 'inferior'. The middle voice of such
derivatives meant 'make oneself' or 'be made' the way the adjective
says. Since Germanic and Balto-Slavic have not preserved the IE
middle voice, the active endings are used, but the semantics is that
of the middle voice. So, if something is made stiff, it stiffens.

> Pre-Nostratic *re means 'come down on, apply'; *der-, 'split'

(factitive, 'make a part in'), is related to *daH-, 'part'
(stative); cf. Sumerian dar, 'split; Egyptian d3.j, 'subdue'.

I only see that some words belonging to the same Wortfeld in
different languages have a /d/. Why must they be connected?

>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> My guess is that this is measureable. I would be willing to bet

$100 that any paragraph in German would take 115% minimum longer
time to say in Russian.

It probably is, for Germanic has lost or reduced mot of its
morphological material which is much better preserved in Slavic.
What's the relevance?

>
>
> <snip>
>
> > ***
> > 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-.
>
> Of course it makes a difference! If the root is *deyH1- and the
> participle is *diH1-nó-, then the word is not an example of what

you

> are talking about. Then there never was a sequence /Hy/ in this

word.

>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Pokorny list *da:i- and *de:i-, i.e. *daHy- and *deHy-; of

course, you are free to disagree.

> ***

None of those is the root that has produced the derivative di:ná- as
analyzed by Kuiper.

>
> > > 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".
> > ***
>
>
> Sievers' law - or lawlessness if you prefer - states that

semivowels

> following long sequences (V:C or VCC) can be vocalized, while

they

> cannot be vocalized after short sequences (VC). This poses
> restrictions on the linguistic variation: dative plurals in -

ebhyas

> and -a:bhyas appear with the /y/ optionally vocalized or
> consonantal, as the poet needed it for his metre; dative plurals

in -

> ibhyas, -ubhyas of i- and u-stems never vocalize the /y/. There

is

> no point in denying the existence of such rules - or of anything
> that can be established empirically.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> I have no problem with that rule: sometimes *y, sometimes *I;

rules determining which.

>
> Of course, Sievers has nohing to do with our problem.

For your obstinate statements about dyáti Sievers has very crucial
relevance. For if the root segment is *dHy- the can be vocalization
of the /y/ to [i(y)] even if a short vowel precedes, but if there is
no laryngeal in it, no such vocalization will be possible. The only
attested form in the Rigveda *has* vocalization. So we *know* the
root did have a laryngeal in this formation.

JER:

> The question boils down
> to this: Where do you find [&y] as you claim you have? Where is

its

> existence proved?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> In di:ná-, as I have repeatedly mentioned. You assume because

you have said it, that *deyH- exists. You have not proved it at all.
And I resent your coming back to explanations that involve it as if
I had accepted it, too. I do not accept it! I accept only *deHy-, to
which Sieves has nothing to say.

Correct, the existence of a root *deyH1- is not a proven fact. Frisk
just rejects Kuiper's analysis, deriving deielós 'furchtbar' instead
from *dwey- 'fear' which really looks better. But that only strips
di:ná- of an etymology, it does not give it another. It is very hard
to follow your determination when you insist on deriving this
adjective which means 'inferior, weak, shallow, scarce' from a
presumed participial form meaning either 'parted' or 'bound',
especially since both roots are know to form their PPP in a
different way.

> Many days ago, you explained the form under consideration, as a

sequence of *-6y-; that is possible only as a zero-grade of *-Hy-
not the *-yH- you are now seeking to introduce to remedy the weak,
ad hoc explanation that *-6y- from *-Hy- always resolves to *y.
Whose law is that? Not Sievers because with Sievers, _nothing_ is
lost!!! only differently realized.

What did I do many days ago? Operate with "*-6y-"?? No way! I urge
you to look again. I certainyl shouldn't have, for, as I remember I
have said many times now, such a phoneme sequence is consistently
realized in PIE with non-vocalized laryngeal.

> Forgive me, but I am beginning to wonder if you really remember

what this was all about in the first place???

Less and less.

>
>
> <snip>
>
> > 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?
> > ***
> Yes.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Well, claim away. I claim it is a retention of a *dey- that has

gone out of use.

Then why can it vocalize the /y/?

> >
> > 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.
>
> No. I observe that wherever one may expect schwa + /y/ to

appear,

> what we really find is the reflex of [Hi]. That is also what we

have

> in [diyáti] which is *dH1i-é-ti with a subphonemic glide between

the

> [i] and the following vowel. The [i] itself is (optionally)

syllabic

> because of the preceding cluster (and only optionally so because
> that is the way Sievers' rule works).
>
> But if *your* stand is that dyáti/diáti cannot be of PIE age,

you

> should not use it for reconstructions that go even further back

in

> time.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> You are getting very Macchiavellian in your argumentation, Jens.
>
> What Beekes questioned was not *CVy- verbs but simply zero-grade

presents.

>
> I have no obligation to believe that *dey-, if it existed, would

not, at one time or another, have formed a regular present:
**dá:yati, parallel to gá:yati.

But what *is* the actually attested form [adi(y]as] with
vocalized /y/?

> > 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.
>
> I have plenty of proof against it, so frankly no. Proof positive
> would be some word which could only be based on a zero-grade
> sequence and then has it surfacing as Latin -ae- or Greek -ei-/-

ai-/-

> oi- before a consonant, or as Latin -a- or Greek -e-/-a-/-o-

before

> a vowel (with loss of *-y- between the two vowels). Or the same

from

> any other IE branch. I know of no such examples. From *da:y-
> 'teilen' Pokorny gives *d&i-lo- as the immediate preform of OCS
> de^lU 'Teil' and Gothic dails. Others posit *daHi-lo-, but that
> ought to have developed into *dayH-lo- which would have given an
> acute intonation in Slavic which is not found (SbCr. dì`jeo

shows

> circumflex). Note that Germanic d- is not expected with IE *d-,

and

> note also Lith. dalìs 'part' without the i-part. There may be
> loanword relations involved in this, and the l-part may have

formed

> an athematic stem, in that case however of a type not

immediately

> transparent. This is not transparent enough to allow a serious
> reconstruction for PIE, much less for states older than that.

> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> As for Germanic *d, IE *dh does yield Germanic *d; this suggest

to me that *deHy- (my version, not your *deyH-) might have become
*dHey- yielding German *dai-.

I actually suggested just that wheh I wrote about it, but I'm not
too happy with it. There are just too many unknowns.

> Perhaps a switch to a new root might bring some agreement?

Speak of what you like.

Jens