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

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

>
>
> I guess that means you do not accept Lehmann's view of the subjunctive

as obligative.

I don't believe I know what he says. Could you summarize? May I guess that
he considers it an innovation since it is not found in Hittite? And that
he also believes it has never existed in Germanic? Just a hunch based on
my general prejudice.

> Are you saying that the aorist subjunctive is *bhér-e-ti? How would

one distinguish the present indicative from it.

I am saying that. Back in the time when *bhér-e-ti was (only) the
subjunctive of a root-aorist, the present indicative was *bhi-bhér-ti
(Ved. bibhárti, Gk. inf. piphránai). As the root aorist (*bhér-t, mid.
*bhr.-é) was replaced by the inchoative derivative *bhé:r-s-t, the root
aorist subjunctive became free to take over the function of the indicative
present. It pretty much had that function already in the case of
statements about the immediate future.

> ***
>
> > 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.

What is "not" the case in klítos and klíma? The ingressive force of the
root? Right, aspectual nuances are generally not conveyed by nouns. You
may call the rain "rain" before, during and after it rains or has rained.

>
>
> > 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?

> ***

So I've noticed. I have also noticed that of the many languages that go
into creating a more and more detailed impression of the Nostratic family
and its protolanguage, you deal with only two, Egyptian and Sumerian. I do
not doubt that Egyptian, being Afroasiatic, is a distant relative of
Indo-European, and I have also seen quite serious-looking attempts to
connect Sumerian to the family, perhaps on a separate line. But I cannot
accept an argument based on a selection of the Nostratic material unless
the Nostratic situation is clear on the point concerned. And the way to
clear up Nostratic is to utilize the secured material of the various
branches, not the mysteries and mistakes, in a combined grand-scale
comparative analysis. My impression is not that you do that.

> > 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?

The type does not have that on a general basis. It generally has the
function of adjectival abstracts, which would here be 'death' as a
derivative from 'dead'. The process of forming nouns from adjectives by
moving the accent to the initial is a living one throughout the known
linguistic history of the older languages, as Gk. thne:tós 'dead' =>
thánatos 'death'. In the prehistory fo the IE protolanguage, the process
of course operated on the form of the adjective of the time: when the
participle **mer-tó-s 'dead' (the prestage of PIE *mr.-tó-s 'dead') had
reached the stage **mor-tó-s the derivation of a substantival counterpart
created *mórto-s. The compound *n.´-mr.to-s 'immortal' must contain the
noun in its second part (then with further weakening of the vowel because
of the placing of the accent in the compound), cf. Gk. athánatos
'immortal' from 'not having death'. The simplex noun *mórtos apparently
changed its meaning from 'death' to 'a mortal, a human being', not by any
demonstrable function of the suffix *-to-, but by a simple whim of
linguistic usage. It is up to you to deminstrate that *-to- has the
alleged "future-prospective" function on anything resembling a general
scale. An isolated and non-representative case does not do that.

> ***
>
>
> > 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.
> ***

So you have found occasion to tell me that your team nonetheless continues
to fight on undaunted behind the fool which is me?? I'm afraid that, here
again, the depths of your subtle argumentation escape me.

> <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.

It may not be that sure, sorry. The form *strengh- is that of LIV. In
Pokorny's material (strenk-, streng-) one finds only very slender support
for the k-variant in the Latvian word "streñkals 'ein Stück verhärteten
Auswurfs'", whatever that is (the tone, pointing to lengthened grade, is
also strange). The rest has some kind of /g/, although Germanic /g/ could
of course be a Verner-*k. Lat. stringo: can have *g or *gh, but Lith.
strìgti, stringù 'stick' (stecken bleiben) without Winter's lengthening
can only have *gh. Greek strangós 'twisted' has of course been taken as
evidence of *g, but as Kümmel says in LIV, *gh can yield Greek /g/ after a
nasal (a friendly thought to D. Gary Miller who saw this). Therefore all
the serious evidence can be derived from a root *strengh-. The Baltic
material also excludes a palatal (as do some Iranian verbs mentioned in
LIV), so the velar is *gh and not the *g^ of rego:.

>
> 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!!!

I can't find it right now, but it actually was my impression from reading
your postings that you apparently assume a development of an epenthetic
-t- in the environment s_r in PIE already. Now that impression is found to
be true, for at least you do it here. The development *sr- > str- does not
apply to PIE, it only applies to some of the daughter languages, as
Slavic, Latvian, Hieroglyphic Luvian, Thracian and the entire branch of
Germanic. Other branches and individual languages keep the distinction:
Sanskrit and Lithuanian can have sr- and str- opposed to each other; Latin
has sr- > fr-, but str- unchanged; Greek has sr- > hr-, but str-
unchanged; Welsh has sr- > ffr-, str- > ystr- (Irish has sr- from both).
There is no PIE epenethesis here.

> "Operate" is a little sarcastic, also. Sarcasm to what purpose?

Nothing of the sort was intended.

> 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.

You'r right I can't see that. For, as you quote yourself just a few
seconds later, there is also an IE root *srew-. PIE *srew- and *strew- are
two different roots.

>
> Under *srebh-, 'drink up', Pokorny lists Latvian strebju, 'drink up

noislly'. Poor Pokorny, wrong again - according to you.

No, Pokorny is correctly using a rule applying to Latvian here.

> 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.

> ***

Sure, what's wrong with that?

> > 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?

Yes, I would. Thats what I've been saying all the time.

> No objective person can say they are not related in some way!
> ***

They are in my analysis underlyingly *identical*.

>
> > 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.

Come on, now, if *newaH2- is 'make new (*newo-s)', isn't Lat. canta:-
'sing' not 'make sung' (based on the participle cantus 'sung').

> Also, the -*ye/o- causative is not "durativizing".
> ***

The causative morpheme is *-ey-e/o-, possibly from earlier *-ey-ye/o-. The
causative stem is indeed a durative, for its aorist is different: the
reduplicated aorist. And of course because it forms a present indicative.

> > 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.

If I have to I do, if I don't have to I don't. Here I didn't have to, for
I was talking about the durative broader concept. When I went on to talk
specifically about the stative I called it that; I operate that way.

> 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'.

> ***

I agree, and I called it durative accordingly.

> > 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
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> As the water-level rises, the water approaches repeatedly.
> ***

So all of a sudden running water is said not to run, but to approach (the
speaker) a large number of times, in PIE? For heaven's sake, it
characteristically runs past the observer, not onto him. You are
desperately clutching at straws. If that is what needs to be assumed
before any of your extraneous arguments can begin to be valid, you can't
expect anybody to follow you.

> <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.
> ***

Perhaps. Another possibility is that there were more than one source of IE
/s/. Or that the constraint on root structure stipulating that the
consonant after the root vowel must not be the same as the one before it
does not apply to /s/.

> ***

JER:

> 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.

> ***

It *is* shown to be just that. If the 2sg imperfect is [adiyas] what can
the 3sg present indicative be except [diyati]? Are you imagining a
difference in stem structure between the imperfect and the present all of
a sudden, just to avoid having evidence?

>
> <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?

> ***

No, both just infix *-ne-/-n- (Baltic only -n-, since it is the middle
voice). The -u- of dabhnóti is that of the adjective seen in Hitt. tepu-.

>
> > 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'.

> ***

Nice to know there's no 'must' about it.

> > 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?
> ***

Kuiper made it *deyH1-, but I do not really take that very seriously. It
would, however, produce a participle *diH-nó- from which di:ná- could be
the direct descendant.

> 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.

The facts do not have to be sold to be true. It does not matter whether
you accept it or not, the vocalization of the stem [di(y)a-] which you
correctly said ought to be there for the derivation to be acceptable is
actually attested.

JER:

> 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'.

> ***

Are you introducing a difference between *daHy- and *daHy=, closely
related, indeed identical but for the shape of their hyphens?? Can't you
just accept that di:ná- has no known etymology and therefore is not of any
use in a serious debate of this kind?

> > 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 but it still amounts to *6y -> *y.

> ***

No, "non-vocalized laryngeal" means H. I am saying that a sequence of
laryngeal + /y/ is realized [Hi]. In the PIE form of this the laryngeal is
preserved as a consonant.

>
> > ***
> > 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.
> ***

So now it is immaterial that the form *is* diáti? Your whole outcry
started with the allegedly alarming news that dyáti had no [i] as a reflex
of the laryngeal. You were then told that the laryngeal should not yield
[i] here, but the presence of a cluster before the /y/ should make it
syllabic, and it actually has. You now have to face up to the situation
that the problem you set out to solve does not exist.

>
> 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.

> ***

Other roots do not play such games, why would this type do that? Can you
prove the existence of a root-form *dey- that cannot be derived from the
fuller form *deHy- by simple sound change?

>
> <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!

Versatile logics too.


Why are your IE-Sumerian connections based on words that are not
established for IE in any serious way? Why not take some of the many
securely reconstructed words and combine them with the entire material of
the other Nostratic branches and then subject the goodies of that to an
external comparison with Sumerian? It seems to me you are acting like a
dialectologist who refuses to explain the English speech habits of the
next village with other dialects of English but insists on using Sanskrit
all the time.

Jens