Re: [tied] primary endings

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 37905
Date: 2005-05-17

 
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] primary endings

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@......> wrote:
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: tgpedersen<mailto:tgpedersen@......>
>   To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>   Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 6:59 AM
>   Subject: [tied] primary endings
>
>
>
>    <snip>
>
>   I proposed this some time ago, but no one has shot it down to my
>   satisfaction:
>
>   The *-i of the primary endings is not a hic-et-nunc particle,
but just
>   a hic particle, ie. it is the locative case ending. That's
because
>   what we think of as finite verbs in the secondary endings are
actually
>   verbal nouns; the secondary endings *-m, *-s, *-t are 'at
me', 'there'
>   (< *so), 'there' (< *to), respectively (now we know why the two
last
>   ones are somtimes confused. The subordinate clauses, in which
the
>   secondary endings appear, are therefore non-finite clauses with
verbal
>   nouns (cf. Finno-Ugric languages).
>
>
>    ***
>   Patrick writes:
>
>   I think that is a suggestion with some merit.
>
>   I have speculated elsewhere that the perfect sentence was
equational:
>
>   wood = cut thing (X) - OV - the wood has been cut (by X)
>

What does 'equational' mean?
***
Patrick writes:
 
Just a fancy word for X is Y; X = Y
***

>   and conversely, the imperfect sentence, the verb was equational
with the ergative subject, expressed or not expressed:
>
>   wood cutting(=X) - the wood is being cut (by X, the cutting
person)
>

do.
***
Patrick writes:
 
Wood - the cutting one is X.
***

>   Our familiar polarity between nomina actionis and nomina agentis.
>
>
>   In Sumerian, the ergative subject has -e; if the transitive
action is imperfect, I.e. durative (marĂ»), the verb has -e.
>
>
>   Two comments on the balance.
>
>   It may be that *-y _never_ signified durative per se but was
always purely just a differentiator based on the idea that a perfect
is primary, an imperfect secondary.
>
??

>   That could mean that the *-i of primary endings is identical to
the *ey- of duratives; bpth are merely differentiating not
conveying 'present' or 'duration' explicitly.
>
>   That could mean that in *CVy- roots, the *-y is just
differentiating a semantic nuance, e.g. inanimate activity vs.
animate activity: 'fall apart' vs. 'take apart'. 
>

That semantic nuance is known as transitivity.
***
Patrick writes:
 
Quite right.
***

>   This is probably the same formant with locative *-i.
>
??


>   When we say "the Chicago (adj.) airport", "the airport of
Chicago", "the airport at Chicago", we are saying virtually the same
thing.
>

>   The differentiator, *-y, forms adjectives.
>
>   Verbal *-s, *-t, has the same ultimate origin as *so and *to.
*so is clan-member; *to is tribe-member.

Where did you get that from?
 
***
Patrick writes:
The primary source for this meaning for *so(:) is the listings under *som-os in Pokornt.
 
The primary source for *to(:) is the listings under Pokorny's *2. teu-.
***


>   Social distance is being equated with speech situation distance.
In this scheme, *so is second person and closer, hence can be
nominative; *to is third person and less close, hence non-nominative.
 
>   Good thought, Torgen
 
Thank you, Nyra
***
Patrick writes:
 
Who is Nyra?
***

Torsten






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/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/