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

----- Original Message -----

From: elmeras2000

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 9:09 AM

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

<snip>

 

>   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?

***

Patrick writes:

 

Why bog me down with answering questions you already have the answer to?

 

*-He is my version of -eH1-. Familiar?

***

 

<snip>

>   ***
>   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.

***

Patrick writes:

 

We both know that present theory allows *-eye to form durative stems of *CVC roots.

 

I think you know, and are being a bit obtuse about it, that I proposed that, at an earlier stage, some roots were simply *CV so that adding *y would produce a durative stem of the form *CVy-.

***

 

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:

 

Same remarks apply as above. Substitute *H for *y and stative for durative.

***

 

>
>   ***
>   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?

***

Patrick writes:

 

Whether *CVy- and *CVH- were still felt as duratives and statives in PIE (I guess we decided they probably were not), I claimed that in Nostratic they were: the product of a *CV root + stem formant. This was their origin.

***

>   >   >   Very simply! *daHy- in zero grade: *H becomes *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 do not know what material you collected but this pattern is common enough --- if you can see it.

 

For example: IE *ge:y- (*geHy-) + -*to yield Old Indian gi:tá, 'sung'; _exactly parallel.

 

Surely you noticed this word in your survey.

***

 

<snip>

>   >   ***
>   >   Patrick wrote:
>   >
>   >   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.

 

***

Patrick writes:

 

Well, I really do appreciate your efforts to "make sense" of what I write.

 

I am sorry. I cannot make any sense of "Not if a consonant precedes".

 

Patrick

***
Jens





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/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/