From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 37887
Date: 2005-05-16
----- Original Message -----From: elmeras2000Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:24 AMSubject: Re: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@......> wrote:
> I do not understand the significance of the subjunctive in your
explanation. Could you explain further?Jens:
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.***Patrick writes:Thanks for the explanation.I guess that means you do not accept Lehmann's view of the subjunctive as obligative.Are you saying that the aorist subjunctive is *bhér-e-ti? How would one distinguish the present indicative from it.***
> 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.***Patrick writes:Not in klítos or klíma.Patrick***
> 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.***Patrick writes:Well, good.That means PIE had no infixes per se that were no the result of metathesis.Patrick***
<snip>> Patrick wrote:
>
> 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?***Patrick write:Giddouda heah!Are you aware the PIE and Sumerian and Egyptian are considered by Nostraticists to be related?***
> 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*?***Patrick writes:I am pretty certain you have heard of *mór-to-s, 'mortal'.How did it assume the function of a future-prospective?***
> Meine Mannschaft ringt dennoch unverdrossen weiter nach dem Tor.
Is that the dative of das Tor or of der Tor?***Patrick writes:How splendidly modest of you to characterize yourself in that way.***<snip>
>Patrick wrote:
> 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 am 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/.
***Patrick writes:First off, Pokorny lists it as *streng-; Watkins lists it as *strenk-, variant *strang-.If you believe it is correctly reconstructed as *strengh-, I think you are obligated to show why they are wrong.And, I believe you are unfairly mischaracterizing my approach by implying that I call for euphony whenever I need a correspondence. If you actually know whereof you speak, cite one other instance where I have introduced "euphony" to explain the appearance of a consonant beside -*t- in the combination *sr-. Just one!!!"Operate" is a little sarcastic, also. Sarcasm to what purpose?Now if you cannot see that *streu-, 'strew', e.g. is an s-mobile form of *reu-, 'roil up', then your eyes may be poorer than mine (and I am working on cataracts). Not all related PIE languages handled initial *sr- the same.Under *srebh-, 'drink up', Pokorny lists Latvian strebju, 'drink up noislly'. Poor Pokorny, wrong again - according to you.Under *sr-edh-, 'whirl around', we have OHG stredan.Under *sreu-, 'flow', OHG stroum.Now what is that -t- if not euphonic, a desert mirage?It is obvious to any objective observer that initial *sr never occurs in Germanic (and, some other IE languages like Latin), and that PIE roots in *sr- are provided with a euphonic -*t-.Back to *streng- again. Pokorny lists Middle Irish srengim. You will, of course say, that -*t- in this combination disappears in Celtic; but I will say that it was never there because Celtic permits initial sr-.Now, I guess you can still fall back on my connecting that phenomenon with PIE. Well, my answer to that is that I consider Pokorny's entries, with the exception of the 'laryngeals', PIE. I guess I could have explained at length that the proper reconstruction of *streng- was **sreng-, but German and Latin and others added a euphonic -*t-, and that these facts were not obviated by the circumstance that examples in *sr-permitting language families (outside of Celtic, for which the wrong explanation would have been advanced) are unfortuitously not attested.As for your *H3reg^- or *H3ryeg^-, I would laugh if I did not have to cry. You are conflating every possible variation into a monster-root.***
> 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.***Patrick writes:We have two "roots", *CVC, and identical but for *-y and zero-grade, *CCVy-. Both have similar and obviously related meanings. You want to deny that *-y is a root-extension.Would you prefer to regard *CVC- as a truncated root?No objective person can say they are not related in some way!***
> 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.***Patrick writes:I am playing the odds. You are denying that any game without a 100% payoff is profitable.***
> 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-.***Patrick writes:I think you are, as one says, reaching here. I do not believe iteratives and perfect participles inhabit the same world-plane. I can, however, see an iterative having some relationship to a future-prospective, as in *mór-to-s.Also, the -*ye/o- causative is not "durativizing".***> 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 more explicit by the addition fo the morpheme *-eH1-.
The perfect is also used to express the state resulting from a
preceding action.***Patrick writes:I make the distinction between stative and durative; perhaps you do not.As for *yaH-, I would regard the stative as meaning 'gone away' not 'be in progress'; that would be, by my lights, durative, hence present or imperfect. The perfect would convey 'gone to and arrived at'.***
> 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.
One use of *tekW- which is assuredly of PIE age is about running
water. I fail to see the obvious connection***Patrick writes:As the water-level rises, the water approaches repeatedly.***<snip>> I have no information on *ses-, 'sleep'; is this possibly a typo?
No: Ved. sásti, Hitt. seszi 'sleeps'.***Patrick writes:Then it is obviously a one-element reduplication.***<snip>
> 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.***Patrick writes:I am not guessing, emptily or otherwise. I base my hypotheses on data internal to PIE and on other, I believe, related languages.***Jens:
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:I like that idea very much.***<snip>
> > ***
> > 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:I cannot doubt the scansion so I do not doubt the underlying form.And, if dyáti were similarly shown to be read [diyáti], I would grant your premise.***<snip>> 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, in complementary distribution with -sta- from *-sk^e/o-.
The point of departure was factitives 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.***Patrick writes:It looks like the Vedic is from -*neu rather than -*n. Is that the case for Baltic also?***
> 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:There is no 'must' except death.But, the reasoning is as follows: PIE *der- can represent Nostratic *der-, *dar-, or *dor-. The existence of the root *da:H- shows that, in the meaning, 'split', the *CV element vowel is *a. Therefore, PIE *der- was Nostratic *dar-. This, of course, matches perfectly Sumerian dar; Sumerian retained the earliest vowels. Egyptian d represents Nostratic *de or *da; 3 is /r/. The -j is a durative or stative suffix. From the meaning, it appears plausible that it could be related. If it represented Nostratic *der- rather than *dar-, we would expect a meaning like 'run', which we have in PIE *der-, 'run'.***
> ***
> 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 most of its
morphological material which is much better preserved in Slavic.
What's the relevance?***Patrick writes:A lot of chaff has been saved with the grain.***<snip>> ***
> Patrick wrote:
>
> 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.***Patrick writes:Sorry, then. What is the root?***<snip>
For your obstinate statements about dyáti Sievers has very crucial
relevance. For if the root segment is *dHy- there 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.***Patrick writes:Sorry, no sale.***
<snip>
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.
***Patrick wrote:I will try again. I derive it from *daH-, 'liquid, fall apart', in the form *daHy-, a close relative of *daHy=, 'split'.***
> 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 certainly 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.***Patrick writes:Does not "non-vocalized laryngeal" mean Ø. You are saying the same thing in a different way buyt it still amounts to *6y -> *y.***
> ***
> Patrick wrote:
>
> 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/?***Patrick writes:Why would it need to? *diáti vs. dyáti? No practical difference.***
<snip>
But what *is* the actually attested form [adi(y]as] with
vocalized /y/?
***Patrick writes:If there were two such closely related root-forms as *dey- and *deHy-, the verb has no obligation to us to be entirely consistent in their employment in various tenses.***<snip>
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.
<snip>***Patrick writes:For whatever interest it may be, Sumerian also has dal, 'dividing line', corresponding, in my opinion to *del-, 'split'; there is also Sumerian dili, 'one' (Akkadian dèlu), which I emend to **dèli form **daili, which I believe corresponds to d6i-lo-, 'part'.Quite a versatile root!Patrick***
Jens
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/GP4qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/