Re: [tied] Re: passive, ingressive origins

Thank you, Jens.

I didn't know that Greek had an intransitive/passive aorist with -e:- (-e:m, -e:s, -e: etc.). Was this applied to thematic verbs, or denominative verbs, or other? Did it take the zero grade of the root as in PIE? You say that it is a stative suffix in PIE, but in Greek it became aorist. Is it the same as the suffix -e:y- that occurs in durative verbs, such as those that became Germanic class III weak verbs, e.g. *take:y- "remain silent", Gothic thahan? This suffix clearly did not have an aorist meaning in Germanic, nor in Latin. Strange to me that it should become aorist in Greek.

I now know that the n-infix could also be applied to adjectival roots, not just verbal roots. But are you saying that the "factitive" suffix is *-H2 (plus athematic endings?), which was applied to the PPP in *-no? Is this the same as *-H2 in e.g. *neweH2- "renew", with either *-ye/o- thematic endings or athematic endings? It would seem that it changes an o-grade vowel before it to e-grade (i.e. the o-stem adjective ending).

elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote: > I have a few questions that I hope any of you might answer: > > 1. Is there a PIE origin of the Sanskrit passive formation in - ya'-, added to the Sanskrit "unstrengthened" root (i.e. zero grade of *e plus resonant, e-grade of *e plus obstruent)? Or is this a Sanskrit innovation, and if so, what then is its origin? There is. The segment *-yé/ó- marks the durative aspect ("present") to a stem consisting of root + the stative suffix //-eH1-//. Without the durative marker this forms an aorist, continued in the Greek intransitive/passive aorist in -e:-n, -e:-s, -e: etc. When the present-marking suffix takes the accent the stative marker is reduced to zero-grade /-H1-/: IE prs. *bhudh-H1-yé-tor 'is waking up', aor. *bhudh-éH1-t 'woke up'. > > 2. What is the origin of the Sanskrit 3rd person passive aorist, formed of the "strengthened" root (full grade of *e plus resonant plus obstruent, lengthened grade of *e plus single consonant) plus - i, with prefixed augment (e.g. abodhi)? It is unusual that it only occurs in the 3rd person singular. Klaus T. Schmidt has found Tocharian examples ending in *-a: from schwa, most notably Toch.B kla:wa 'was heard' = Ved. ás'ra:vi, injunctive s'rá:vi 'was heard'. That must be IE *k^lów-&. It looks like the collective of a root noun, i.e. something like "(the is/was) a lot of listening". > 3. What is the origin of the Germanic ingressive (or is it "inchoative" or "inceptive"?) verb endings -nan (Gothic), -na (Old Norse), etc.? Is it related to the perfect passive participle, Gothic -ans, ON -inn (and further to Sanskrit perfect passive participles in -na)? Or is it an independent formation, and if so, what is its IE provenance? They have two sources: (1) Old middle-voice forms of nasal-infix derivatives from adjectives. Hittite has tepu-s 'small' => tep-n-u- zzi 'makes small, reduces, subdues', Skt. dabhnóti 'damages'. (2) Middle forms of factitives based on PPP in *-no-, i.e. *-ne-H2- (> PIE *-naH2-) meaning "make -ed", so Goth. fullnan is properly 'make (oneself) filled'. In both sets, the old inflection on the middle voice which is demanded by the semantics has been replaced by the forms of the active. Jens