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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
wrote:

> At 5:03:43 AM on Sunday, May 15, 2005, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Brian M. Scott<mailto:BMScott@...>
> > To: Patrick Ryan<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 11:57 PM
> > Subject: Re[4]: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.
>
> > > Patrick wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Any given *CVC is 76/19ths more likely to be a root
> > > aorist than a root present; i.e. 400%.
>
> > Brian:
> > And any given verbal root is 600/130 times as likely to be a
> > root aorist as to be a root present (on the basis of the
> > figures available here); that's a little over 460%. In
> > short, the probability that a given verbal root is a root
> > aorist goes *down* slightly if we know that it's a *CVC
> > root: the probability that a root chosen at random from the
> > 730 verbal roots under consideration is 600/730, or about
> > 82%; the probability that a root chosen at random from the
> > 95 *CVC roots is a root aorist is 76/95, or 80%.
>
> > ***
> > Patrick writes:
>
> > Do you not mean:
>
> > "the probability that a root chosen at random from
> > the 730 verbal roots under consideration (added) IS A ROOT
> > AORIST is 600/730, or about 82%;
> > ???
>
> Indeed. In context that seems clear enough, despite the
> unfortunate typo.
>
> The rest is face-saving that requires no response.
>
> Brian

Correcting the numbers that would now be:

For all roots there is a 405 in 627 = 64.5% probability that a root
formations is a root aorist.

For CVC roots there is a 86 in 114 (86 + 28)= 75.4%, or a 86 in 136
(86 + 50) = 63.2% probability that a root formation is a root aorist.

If lengthened-grade (and full-grade middle-voice) root presents are
counted among root presents, the difference then is as small as
64.5% against 63.2%.

It is hard to see any particularly strong affinity of CVC roots to
aoristic function on this basis.

Jens