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

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

> > First, in my opinion, the formant for the stative has the

shape -

> *Ha- in PIE.

JER:

> That is not a morphological segment I know with this function.

Where

> have you got it from?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> I misspoke. *-Ha in Nostratic; *-He in PIE.
> ***

I know of no such stative marker in IE either. 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?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Let me remind you. We discussed exhaustively whether roots of

the form *CVy- showed up as duratives, and decided that the final *-
y in biliterals did not automatically make them durative. Remember
now?

> ***

Not really, but there are *no* formal restrictions concerning root
structure that would make a root predictably durative or punctual.
In this, the linguistic sign is just arbitrary. What *is* your
point? If you are just finding occasion to say - for reasons I don't
understand - that short roots ending in /y/ are not necessarily
durative, you are of course right, but why in heaven's name should
they be?

> > 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.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Come on, Jens.
>
> Do you just want to obfuscate or do you truly not understand

what I write?

No, I can make no sense of it. That, however, does not necessarily
mean that I do not understand it, it could also be as nonsensical as
I see it.

> I claimed that *CVH was originally a stative form, the durative

form of which would be *CVy-.

>
> What happens after *CVC where the final *C is not a laryngeal or

*y had nothing to do with the question.

> ***

By what principle would CVH be stative, and CVy be durative? Are
there other cases of such a principle? It is not a parameter
generally recognized in IE studies. Are you introducing it, and, if
so, on what good basis?

> > > 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 wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> I thought we acknowledged at least two di:ná-.
> ***

Oh? There's the adjective meaning 'weak, rare, shallow'. What's the
other one?

> <snip>
>
> > ***
> > Patrick wriote:
> >
> > Oh, so laryngeals do not leave any traces in IE-derived
> languages?
>
> Not after the laryngeals have vanished which is what I

understood

> your 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].
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Well, I simply disagree.
>
> Laryngeals show up by lengthening the foregoing vowel.

Not if a *consonant* precedes; that's the case in the forms we were
talking about. I have done my utmost to make sense of your
statements, so far unsuccessfully.

Jens