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

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

From: elmeras2000

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 8:43 PM

Subject: 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 wrote:
>
>   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?
   

***

Patrick writes:

 

I have explained this before but I will explain it again.

 

I do not believe that laryngeals had any coloring abilities.

 

The different long vowels (at least, originally long) that one sees in conjunction with laryngeals in PIE is, in fact, the Nostratic original vowel, preserved in its quality by being long. Only short vowels suffered the Ablaut reduction in PIE.

 

Before you write how uninteresting that is, Professor Lehmann was told of the idea, and expressed his interest in it, suggesting I write a paper on it; and he would assist me in placing it. Shortly thereafter, his wife died, and I have not had the heart to burden him with more than he already has as a burden

 

I thought you were in the picture on this when you saw me indicating laryngeals by *H and showing the vowel I believe was preserved from pre-PIE. The only thing of which I am not certain is if there were two laryngeals: /?/ and /h/.

***.

>   <snip>
>
>   >   ***
>   >   Patrick wrote:
>   >
>   >   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.
 

***

Patrick writes:

 

According to Beekes, that is not correct. On page 229, item c. of Stem Formation, Suffix *ei/i.  For example *mn-ei-, and thematized *spék^-ie-.

 

Next Beekes mentions your causative in *-ei-e- but, in almost the same breath, "-ei-e is also used to form non-causatives with zero-grade in the root: PIE *luk-éie, "to shine"". On page 230, he lists several more uses for *-ie- that are nit causative.

***

 

>   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.

***

Patrick writes:

 

Do you mean "obtuse"?

 

If so, it is because I have explained my reasoning behind this beore, and at length.

***

>   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? 

***

Patrick writes:

 

Sorry we live in two different worlds. I do not believe in anything "arbitrary" AT ALL. Every effect has a cause.

***

>   >   >   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 above? 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-"?

 

 

***

Patrick writes:

 

I thing he's got it!

***

 

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:

 

Jens, we have altready been through this once.

 

We already looked at *CVy- and determined it was as liable to form a root aorist as a root present.

 

I extrapolate that the same is true of *CVH-.

 

*CVy- and *CVH- were lexicalized, and the original formants of durative and stative were no longer felt as such.

 

It is in Egyptian and Sumerian that we have actual CV roots; and this means that, at an earlier stage (pre-Nostratic), PIE is the recipient of *CV roots + formants like *y, *H, *t, and *w.

 

We know these formants are used after the later *CVC roots.

***

>   >   ***
>   >   Patrick wrote:
>   >
>   >   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?

***

Patrick writes:

 

If, after being lexcalized as regular *CVC- roots, none of the former force of the formants was felt (and I cannot, at present, prove that it was), then these originally CV+f. roots, now *CVC- are neutral.

***

>   >   >   >   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-.

 

***

Patrick writes:

 

Middle Persian bri:n-, 'determined', from *bhreHi-.

***

 

 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 wrote:
>   >
>   >   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.

 

***

Patrick writes:

Since I wrote above that the root-vowel becomes Ø, you can be assured I understand it.

***
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/