Rob to Piotr:
> Yes. On the subject of reduplication, it seems
> that there were at least two stages of the process
> in IE.
Do you think as I do that the perfect reduplication
(CeCoC-) is most ancient and that the i-reduplication
(CiCeC-) is a much later phenomenon? Currently I
link the latter comes from the treatment of pretonic
schwa during Schwa Diffusion. A former *C&CéC-
becomes *CICéC- and then *CiCeC- via Schwa Merger.
> Regarding the sigmatic aorist, you're saying that
> it was originally inchoative in meaning? Could it
> be related to the neuter s-stems?
As for me, I think it was, which lends more credence
to the idea that the durative could be a bare thematic
nominal stem (or sometimes athematic) converted
directly to a verb without further marking, just as
the sigmatic aorist appears to be. Hmmm.
> In phonological terms, there is nothing in IE that
> seems to suggest /sj/ becoming /sk/, so I doubt
> that Jens is right.
I agree. The sound change apparently would only
exist in this one example. I can't accept rules like
that and it's not even necessary because there are
verbs clearly marked with the 'extension' *-g-
which I feel should be linked with the particle *ge.
(Yet another example of unmarked noun-to-verb
conversion in an earlier stage of IE, by the way.)
= gLeN
______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/