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

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

JER:

> 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?
> ***

In the shape *-eH1-, yes. In other forms, not at all. What is your
personal "version" of the suffix based on? And I did not know you
meant that, for you had nto said so. Why do you refer to the facts
by forms nobody else in the field can recognize?

> <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.

No, that forms causatives, and from all kinds of 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-.

> ***

And I asked you how you got that impression. I'm asking you again
now.

> 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.

> ***

And then what happens? How far aboove? Are you referring to your
statement, "some roots were simply *CV so that adding *y would
produce a durative stem of the form *CVy-", meaning that, by
substitution, "some roots were simply *CV so that adding *H would
produce a stative stem of the form *CVH-"? What roots do you have in
mind? Surely the three classical roots *dheH1- 'put', *deH3- 'give',
*steH2- 'take a stand' are not stative, for they all form root
aorists. The root *yeH2- 'go (by horse or vehicle)' is durative, but
not stative in any common use of this term, for its laryngeal is
also present in non-durative forms of it, as the s-aorist *yé:H2-s-
/*yéH2-s-. Where do you really have material that allows you to
segment the root-final laryngeal off and ascribe a stative force to
it? Are you doing an empirical study at all?

> > ***
> > 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.

> ***

Why make such a claim? And what is its relevance for the analysis of
forms of IE individual languages?

> > > > 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.

No, give me one with following -n-. The picture is different for -t-
and -n-. Non-Aryan evidence shows *-&-to- where Indic has either -i-
ta- or -i:-ta-; with following sonant the form is consistently with -
i-. The Indic variant -i:-ta (not found in Iranian) can be explained
from *-&-to- also, i.e. as identical with -i-ta-, by simple
levelling, in that -i-ta- has been adjusted to full-grade alternants
with -a:- taking over its length. There are four forms in -i:ta-:
dhi:tá- 'sucked', gi:tá- 'sung', pi:tá- 'drunk' (but Gk. potós),
sphi:tá- 'thrived'; but ditá- 'bound' (Gk. detós), diná- 'divided'
(dití- 'division', Gk. datéomai 'divide'), ON gin 'abyss', Gk.
khatéo: 'want, be without', s'itá- (Lat. catus), Lat. po-
situs 'placed' (and sinus 'bay'), Lat. satus 'sowed', OS
sad 'satiated', sitá- 'bound', chitá- 'cut off'. These reflect *dh&1-
tó-, *g&2-tó-, *p&3-tó-, *sph&1-tó-, *d&1-tó-, *dH2i-nó- (*d&2-tí-),
*g^hH1i-nó-, *gh&1-tó-, *k^&3-tó-, *s&1-tó- (*sH1-nó-) *s&1-tó-,
*s&2-tó-, *s&2-tó-, *sk^&2-tó-. The roots are *dheH1y- 'suck',
*geH2y- 'sing', *peH3y- 'drink', *speH1y- 'thrive', *deH1y- 'bind',
*deH2y- 'divide', *g^heH1y- 'yawn', *gheH1y- 'lack', *k^eH3y-
'hone', *seH1y- 'lag behind', *seH1y- 'sow', *seH2y- 'bind', *seH2y-
'satiate', *sk^eH2y- 'cut off'. There are no examples with -i:-no-.
Other derivatives also showed *-&-t-, but *-(H)i- before sonants.

> 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 would appreciate not having to do that.

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

precedes".

In the zero-grade there is no root vowel to lengthen. What were you
talking about? It is your task to state your case so that others can
understand what you are saying. It is as if you try to run away from
the argument by answering in general terms when cornered on a
specific point. That brings us nowhere.

Jens