Piotr:
> "Root presents" are those like *h1es-ti/*h1s-enti
> or *gWHen-ti/*gWHn-enti, where the stem = the root,
> without any affixes (excluding also the thematic
> vowel).
Oh yes, I guess "athematic presents" would also
include other stems that I wasn't necessarily talking
about at the time, ie. stems with 'extensions'.
Nevermind, we're on the same track anyways. I was
refering to the simple athematic stems like *?es-,
*?ei-, *?ed- and all that jazz, as you were.
> The PIE status of simple thematic presents,
> on the other hand, is dubious despite their being
> so numerous in Greek, Sanskrit, Germanic etc.
> There are none such in Anatolian, and just a few
> in Tocharian -- the branches that seem to have
> split off very early.
Okay, okay. Looks good, I admit. But there's a slight
complication.
The *n-presents don't just disappear as nicely as
you'd like. You'd think that the *n-infix dates
prior to Syncope. With Syncope, a reduced syllabic *n
would then have an easier time to metathesize into
the preceding root. Id est:
*léikW-an-tai
=> **leikWn.ti (Syncope)
=> **leinkWti (Metathesis)
=> *linékWti (Phonotactic Adjustment
-- 'Accent Shift')
So, aorists and duratives don't blur so nicely as
you say in this pre-IE grammar, or at least derived
ones. We may do without a durative theme in *-e- if
you and your buddy Jasonoff are correct, I admit, but
we still have three pre-Syncope themes that
nonetheless stubbornly remain, judging by the facts
you're showing me so far:
NULL root durative-aorist
*-an- derived durative
*-as- derived aorist
Even without *-e-, this still mirrors the Tyrrhenian
verb very nicely.
> Yes, but is it the same *-je/o-?
They are not the same suffix per se, but I can only
see one source for this suffix -- the relative
pronoun *yo-.
As for adjectives in *-yo- from thematic stems, I
can't agree that *y is simply an intrusive phoneme to
split two side-by-side vowels here. This is the job
of *h1 (as in gen.pl *-o-(h)om). It's less assumptive
to treat *y as original.
On a factitive *newe-h2-:
> Why can't this *-h2- be a collective suffix, [...]
If so, then you're admitting that verb stems can be
derived from nouns or adjectives without any marking
at all, which is the very state of affairs that
I'm theorizing for Mid IE and earlier IndoTyrrhenian!
In honesty, while I'd like to guide you down this
wonderful road of morphological madness, I sadly must
admit that I link *-h2- of verbs with the Tyrrhenian
passives in *-h-e (Etr /-cHe/) while the collective
*-h2 (from MIE *-hWa) is linked to Tyrrhenian
inanimate plural *-ho (Etr /-cHva ~ -va/).
>> So subjunctives correlate mostly with aorist stems
>> in Tocharian, not presents? Did I get that right?
>> I'll think about that some more.
>
> That's right.
Still thinking <:/ Damn if that ain't a stumper. No
gettin' around that one, I'm afraid. Well, I guess
I'm just going to have to accept that non-derived
duratives and aorists in MIE were both unmarked.
The subjunctive would then be *-e-, but for the sake
of my phonotactic scheme, I suppose I could still
get away with a post-Anatolian subjunctive like
*bHer-e-he-ti with intrusive *h1 (for your
*bHer-e-e-ti). Hehe.
Now, just to help me understand, what then is the
original paradigm for stems like *bHer- again? Are
we saying that *bHer-ti was originally the present
and *bHer-t, the aorist/past? From where then are
Narten stems coming from and how are they conjugated?
Do they have a present in *Ce:C-ti and an aorist/past
in *CeC-t?
= gLeN
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com