--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <G&P@...> wrote:
> Thanks for the more detailed reply, Torsten.
>
> > Everybody (so I read) has given up the idea that Hittite hi-
verbs were
> > once stative, since those roots are no more stative semantically
than
> > those of the mi-verbs.
>
> Yes, we can abandon the idea that they were once stative in
Hittite - but
> that does not mean they weren't statives earlier, in PIE, and
spread to
> non-statives in Hittite. If this ending has a stative/perfect
meaning
> across a number of languages outside PIE, that might be a clue.
>
> But of course, I'm arguing not with you, but with Jasanoff,
without having
> read his book
>
I think we should distiguish between verbal roots that are
inherently stative (eg. 'stay') and those that are punctual
(eg. 'change'). Think of a mathematical or computer language
description of a chess game. You'd need two verbs: one inherently
stative-intransitive:
'be_at(<chess piece>, <board position>)'
and one inherently punctual one
'move(<player>, <chess piece>, <board position>, <board position>)'
Now there are ways to turn stative-intransitive verbs into punctual
ones: begin_to_be_at ... or stop_being_at ... or punctual ones into
stative-intransitive ones: be-moving ... (by turning a conceptually
instantaneous process into a process over a time interval) or
move_back_and_forth (iterative, so not really stative). But I think
the idea implicit in the discusion was that semantically stative
roots should follow the "stative" hi-conjugation (since the perfect
make statives out of any root), and semantically punctual roots
should follow the "punctual" mi-conjugation. But no sign of that has
been found.
Come to think of it, I think we have a problem here.
Torsten