From: elmeras2000
Message: 37955
Date: 2005-05-19
> <snip>meaning 'gone
> > > As for *yaH-, I would regard the stative as
> away' nothence
> > 'be in progress'; that would be, by my lights, durative,
> presentat'.
> > or imperfect. The perfect would convey 'gone to and arrived
> > ***with you when I do not?
>
> Yes, *yaH- is basically a durative verb.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> If you wan to disagree, fine. But why write "Yes" as if I agree
> I do _not_ think *yaH was durative! I think it was stative.And what, then, do you mean by that? Surely you do not mean it is a
> ***
> > I do not derive it from either 'bound' or 'parted' butrather
> from 'liquid/liquify/disintegrate', *daH-, the inanimate _usage_of
> animate _ *daH-, 'part'.How
> > ***
>
> Are there animate and inanimate *verbs* in your grammar of IE?
> could *daH- create a form that ends up being Sanskrit di:ná-?What
> was it in PIE? Especially, what is the segment /-i:-/ based on?inanimate verbs are actions taken upon non-humans.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Short answer, yes. Animate verbs are actions which humans take;
>diy- before consonant become di:-, before vowel becomes diy.
> Very simply! *daHy- in zero grade: *H become *i; *a becomes Ø;
> ***That is not the way IE ablaut works.
>the
> JER:
> > No, "non-vocalized laryngeal" means H. I am saying that a
> sequence of
> > laryngeal + /y/ is realized [Hi]. In the PIE form of this
> laryngeal isMostly as /i/.
> > preserved as a consonant.
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick writes:
> >
> > And how is [Hi] realized in IE?
> > ***
> As [hi], [xi] or [GWi] (GW being a voiced labiovelar fricative),
> depending on which laryngeal it is.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> And how is this, in turn, realized in IE-derived language?
> ***