Re: passive, ingressive origins

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

> > > So I'll stick to the
> > > causative/iterative
> > > present stem. I suggest it can be analysed as:
> > >
> > > *mone- "state of thinking"
> > > *-h1 essive/translative
> > >
> > > *mone-h1 y§³m- "I impel <obj.> to a state of thinking"
> > > *mone-h1 is- "you (sg.) impel <obj.> to a state of thinking"
> > > *mone-h1 it- "he impels <obj.> to a state of thinking"
> > >
> > > *mone-h1 y§³mV- "we impel <obj.> to a state of thinking"
> > > *mone-h1 itV- "you (pl.) impel <obj.> to a state of thinking"
> > > *mone-h1 y§³nt- "they impel <obj.> to a state of thinking"
> > >
> > > where the auxiliary is
> > > http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE593.html
> > > but without the laryngeal.
> >
> > You don't say? And how does the passive participle of the
> causative
> > *monit§³s, *sodit§³s, which you apparently did not know either,

fit

> > into this?
> >
>
> That's an exaggeration. I know my Latin verbs in the main forms.
> How does
>
> *mon-h1 it¨®-
>
> suit you?

For one thing, I can't read it. I can see from the context that §³
is accented short o, but I can't see what ¨® is. I would expect it
to be the same, so is it a typo? A stative marker suits me very
badly in a causative. The stem appears to be *mon-éy- alternating
with *mon-i-´ which does lend itself to easy analysis in terms of
accent-governed ablaut between full-grade and zero-grade. I would
suppose that the final part of the present stem *monéy-e/o- is in
reality the normal durativizer *-ye/o-, but I know of no other cases
of a simplification of *-yy- to *-y- (nor, however, of any
counterexamples). I do not at all understand what you are trying to
achieve by forcing the stative morpheme into the causative; I can't
see it makes any sense, and I am sure I can see the form does not
fit.

Jens