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

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

> But since you bring up the point above, it appears that

agreement with your point of view is the only thing that does
make "sense" -- to you.

> ***

If I have made a proper job when forming my point of view it should
ideally be because the stand taken is the only one that makes sense.
If something else makes sense also I should not make a decision.

> > I do _not_ think *yaH was durative! I think it was stative.
> > ***
>

JER:

> And what, then, do you mean by that? Surely you do not mean it

is a

> perfectum tantum which it is not. Nor can you mean it is a

suffixed

> formation with the stative marker *-eH1-, for they have y-

presents,

> and ya:- has an athematic root present. And you cannot mean it

is a

> middle-voice verb without -t- in the 3sg (Oettinger's 'Stativ'),

for

> this is not generally used in the middle voice at all. It *is*
> descriptively a verb that forms its durative aspect stem
> (aka 'present' stem) without any addditional marking. But you

don't

> mean that, you say. So *do* you mean anything interesting?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> First, in my opinion, the formant for the stative has the shape -

*Ha- in PIE.

That is not a morphological segment I know with this function. Where
have you got it from?

> Second, I think you know very well what "stative" is. "Belonging

to or designating a class of verbs which express a state or
condition".

Okay, I do now. Others use the term differently.

> We have already exhaustively discussed that verbal roots of the

form *CVy- if, originally durative, cannot be shown to behave
exclusively as we would expect durative verbs to do. It is possible
that *yaH- may have undergone a similar loss of definition.

You may think we have discussed this exhaustively, but I do not
understand what you are talking about. In what way do originally
durative roots ending in /y/ not behave like durative roots would be
expected to? What funny expectations did you have?

> Since you adamantly deny the possibility of statives of the form

*CVH-, how would it be possible for you to say what inflections
might have been used with it -- if it existed?

> ***

A stative derivative is formed by means of the suffix *-eH1-, zero-
grade alternant *-H1-; its present stem is in *-H1-yé/ó-, while the
aorist has *-éH1-. After a root-final laryngeal the laryngeal of the
present would not be detectable.

> > Very simply! *daHy- in zero grade: *H become *i; *a becomes

Ø;

> diy- before consonant become di:-, before vowel becomes diy.
> > ***

JER:

> That is not the way IE ablaut works.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> I think it does, at least for Old Indian.
> ***

Where do you see that? You *postulate* it for di:ná- under an
unmotivated theory of how that may be derived, but what material has
shown you that this is the regular treatment "at least for Old
Indian"? I collected the entire material some years ago, and I do
not have a single example like di:ná-. What have I missed?

> > > 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?
> > ***
>
> Mostly as /i/.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Oh, so laryngeals do not leave any traces in IE-derived

languages?

Not after the laryngeals have vanished which is what I udnerstood
you words "in IE-derived language" to refer to. If you count
indirect evidence they may, in the right setting, leave the trace
that the /y/ is vocalized and appears as [i].

Jens