Re: passive, ingressive origins

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Come to think of it, Brugmann's law prevents that solution. On

the

> > other hand, applying that law means that since the Latin shows -

o-

> > for the stem and since Sanskrit shows -a:- then the stem vowel
> must
> > be in an open syllable. That means that the last consonant of
> roots
> > in -...VC- will always belong to the suffix.
>
> Why? Can't a suffix begin with a vowel?

That's not what I'm saying.
Let's start with Sanskr. ma:náyati. Since Brugmann's law has
applied, the -a:- is the result of -o- in an open syllable, thus:
PIE *mo-né-ye-ti, written out in syllables (Brugmann's law uses the
terms 'open syllable', therefore 'syllable' must be a permissible
term in linguistics, in spite of your criticism of it). But written
out in morphemes, the same word is *mon-éye-ti. The syllable
boundary and the morpheme boundary dont match after the root. Thus
Brugmann's law must have taken effect _after_ that point in time
where the causative suffix, whatever its origin, gave up its status
as an indepebndent word and became part of the verb stem.

So it's

Pre-PIE *mon éyeti
-> (the finite verb becomes a suffix)
PIE *monéyeti
-> (Brugmann)
Pre-Sanskrit *mo:néyeti >
->
Sanskrit ma:náyati

> > That claim will wreck
> > any attempt to explain the causative suffix as originally an
> > independent word, which it must have been at some time (unless
> Adam
> > & Eve put the formation of the causative in an addendum to their
> > catalog of animal names). I therefore believe Brugmann's law
> applied
> > after the formation of causatives (which makes sense, since it's

a

> > rule about Sanskrit, not PIE).
>
> Now I think you are being *too* particular. Suffixes are typically
> cliticized words and therefore of reduced structural makeup. They
> are therefore not necessarily restricted by structural rules
> pertaining to full words. But in exchange for the leeway of course
> we lose rigor and the ability to prove a point.
>

Erh, and that means in this case?


Torsten