Re: [tied] -hi, -mi

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

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 6:55 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] -hi, -mi

 

<snip>

 

>   If -hi is truly used in both present (durative) and aorist
(punctual), then either the origin of each -hi is different in each
aspect

- or -

-hi does not signify anything and durative and
punctual  are being marked in some other way.
>

Or it means that -hi signifies something that has nothing to do with
durative or punctual.

***

Patrick:

 

That is just what I said. That was, of course, _not_ what you said previously, was it?

 

***

 

>   Actually, I think we need to go over the basics: there are two
types of _action_, durative, which persists over a remarkable period
of time; and punctual, which persists over such a small period of
time so that, for all purposes, it can be said not to persist, and is a
one-time event.
>
>   Stative, on the other hand, characterizes the _result of an
action_ NOT an action itself. When we say "is red", we indicate a
persistence of a state rather than an action.
>
>   The perfect originally represented the stative in PIE.
>
>   To oppose aorist and present is technically incorrect; present
is a tense, aorist is an aspect. Aorist is opposed by progressive;
present is opposed by past and future.
>
>   A stative can be past (was red), present (is red), or future
(will be red).
>
>   A progressive can be past (was reading), present (is reading),
or future (will be reading).
>
>   A "aorist" (punctual) can be past (struck), present (strikes),
or future (will strike).
>
>   Now, Hittite does have two major manifestations of the "hi"
conjugation: -hi and -hu(n). We can characterize the first as
present tense (because of -i) and the second as past tense
(preterite) with -Ø continued in the second person singular as -ti
(ta + i) and -ta.
>
>   Now, I repeat to you again, how did Jasanoff "show" that -hi was
used in both present (presumably progressive) and aorist (presumably
punctual)?

***

Patrick:

 

Do you propose to ever answer this question which I have asked three times now???????

 

***

>And what does either one of them have to do with "stative".

Nothing, as far as I can tell.

***

Patrick:

 

Again, that is _not_ what you said.

 

***

 

>
>   Either you are mightily confused or Jasanoff is.

Or you can't be bothered to read his book.

***

Patrick:

 

If you have even nearly reported what he wrote, I would not be interested in reading his book.

 

***

 

 

Torsten