Re: [tied] PIE *CVC conjugation

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

> Jens,
>
> I would be very interested in your comments (or any other

interested person) on the following proposed scheme for earliest PIE
conjugational bases:

>
>
> PUNCTUAL
>
> *CéC²-

What is there to commnt upon? It exists. So does the same structure
for duratives ("present stems").

>
> DURATIVE
>
> *CéC²-e-

It exists. The same structure is also subjunctive of root presents
and root aorists.

>
> INTENSIVE
>
> *Cé-CoC²-
>
> *Ce-CóC²-

These do not exist.

> I presume that the augment (*é-) was not obligatory as this stage

to indicate non-present time.

>
> I also presume that -*i was later added to distinguish present

from imperfect

It was used to distinguish present from injunctive. In this it is on
a par with the augment.

> Combined with athematic secondary and thematic primary endings:
>
>
> *CéC²- + -*m = transitive aorist (now called injunctive)

You mean 1st person singular, I take it? Sometimes, yes. But the
same structure can be intransitive, and it can be a present
injunctive also.

> *CéC²- + -*oH = intransitive aorist (stative)

Not a structure I know. Do you mean a 1st person singular in *-o: ?
That is either a thematic present or a subjunctive (of a root
present or a root aorist).

> *CéC²e- + -*m = transitive durative (now called imperfect; with -

*i, later present)

Durative yes, but not necessarily tansitive.

> *CéC²e- + -*oH = intransitive durative (now called subjunctive)

I see no motivation for such a segmentation. The subjunctive of
thematic verbs does not seem to differ from the indicative in the
1sg active, but why are you so interested in precisely that form?

>
> *Cé-CoC²- + -*m = durative intensive (now called reduplicated

present)

No, the intensive has the shape *C(e)C-CóC-, e.g. *w(e)r-wórt-
mi 'turn again and again'. The reduplicated present was *si-sékW-ti,
3pl sé-skW-n.ti .

>
> *Ce-CóC²- + -*oH = punctual intensive (now called perfect)

No, the 1sg of the perfect was *Ce-CóC-H2e (*kWe-kWór-H2a > Ved.
cakára, 3sg *kWe-kWór-e > caká:ra).

> Do you think this organizational pattern has any merit at all?

Only where not innovative.

Jens