Re: [tied] But where does *-mi come from?

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

From: elmeras2000

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 10:55 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] But where does *-mi come from?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <G&P@......> wrote:
> >the question is
> > really the age of 'facio:' + verbal noun. Judging from 'cale
facio:'
> > and 'a:re facio:' it's old.
>
> You have failed to prove the existence of any verbal nouns cale:
and are:.
> They are simply compounding forms (bound morphemes) from the verbs
areo and
> caleo.

They are old instrumentals of root nouns used in combination
with 'make' to denote the predicate, i.e. that which something is
made into. This is the essive or translative use of the iE
instrumental, and the construction is the one which is called "cvi"
by Panini and is now haunting IE studies under the name Caland.

 

In its "classical" form, the construction transforms o-stem
adjectives into a form with -i: when used as the predicate of the
Sanskrit verbs kr-, bhu:- and as-. kru:rá- 'bloody' forms kru:ri:
karoti 'makes bloody'. From a root noun we have Lat. rube-
facio: 'make red', based on the stem seen in OIr. rú 'red plant, red
material'. The forms *kruH2ríH1 + *kWer- and *H1rudh-éH1 + *kWer-
(or *dheH1- 'render'?) are instrumentals meaning 'being/becoming
bloody/red'. The passage of the thematic vowel of *kruH2ró-s to -i-
in the first part of a compound-like collocation is as in compounds
with *dwi- 'two-, bi-'. The short /-e/ of rube- is iambic shortening
as in bene, ego etc.

***

Patrick:

 

I will probably be accused of oversimplification again but I think we really need to distinguish carefully between PIE and IE cases.

 

I think it is obvious from the variant forms of IE case-endings that PIE had more cases than IE which have not survived independently.

 

With hindsight, we can distinguish these PIE cases, one from another, regardless of their employment in IE.

 

For example, in the "instrumental" mentioned above in -*i:,  this form corresponds to a PIE terminative to designate the  goal of motion or other activity, which we can reconstruct as -*Hey-, i.e. the well-known verb 'go (to)'.

 

In Latin rube-, we have the survival of a different PIE case: an essive in -*H(e), correspondeing to the verbal stative in -*H(e). With this explanation, we do not have to resort to "iambic shortening".

 

The IE locative and sometimes genitive in -*i is simply a PIE adjective formed by -*y(e).

 

Though I have been looking for many years, I suspect that PIE had no true genitive case because the IE genitive in -*(o)s is probably a comitative in *-s(e). Perhaps at least some Slavicists will agree smoi.

 

I am not arguing here for the identification of any form with a specific case in PIE, that would be a different posting, but rather for an approach to the problem.

 

***

 

<snip>

Jens





 
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/