[tied] Re: IE thematic presents and the origin of their thematic vo

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "nathrao" <nathrao@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:08 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: IE thematic presents and the origin of their

thematic

> vowel
>
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "nathrao" <nathrao@...> wrote:
> > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My gut feeling is that the durative/punctual contrast is not
> > > > > terribly fundamental in historical terms, [...]
> > > > > inherently "present" or "aorist" value of a verb was a
> > > > > function of its meaning, so that it tended to be used in
> > > > > certain contexts, accompanied by certain adverbs, etc.,
> > > > > but didn't have to be specially marked for aspect.
> > > >
> > > > The thing to do is to look for contemporary languages that have
> > > > durative vs punctual as a fundamental distinction and study them,
> > > > to understand how PIE may have evolved.
> > >
> > > Modern English actually seems to have such a distinction. For
> > > example, the verb "carry" has an inherently durative meaning --
> > > "carries" and "is carrying" mean (virtually) the same thing.
> > > However, the verb "find" is inherently aorist, since
> > > "is finding" can be understood only with an ingressive or
> > > inchoative sense along with the durative.
> >
> > However, "I carried it home", which is "terminative" (or
> > accomplishment in Vendler's terminology) and "I carried it"
> > show no difference in morphology. If 'durative' vs 'punctual' was
> > a basic, compulsory distinction, I would expect some morphological
> > marker to distinguish the two.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> I do not know how other native English speakers will respond to your
> assertion but, to me, "I carried it home" describes the process

rather than

> the termination of it. "Home" merely identifies the vector. To express
> termination, I would say: "I brought it home."

So, if I was carrying a book, but dropped it on the way, I can
still say "I carried it home"? [What does 'vector' mean here?
Is it just direction?]

> As far as markers, I believe
> the ancients were much less forgiving than we are when words were
> incorrectly employed. None of this silly nonsense of 'whatever is

said is

> usage'.

Then how did any ancient language ever change?

>
> ***
>
> > This gets even harder when PIE supposedly used iterative of
> > 'take a step' to say 'walk', or the iterative of 'take a sip' to
> > say 'drink'. How did they say 'I walked home' or 'He drank the
> > whole pot of mead'?
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Probably with -*s aorist for 'walked';

So, different stems were used for different meanings: root aorist
-> took a step, s-aorist -> walked and reached the destination?
('walk' seems to be capable of something 'carry' is not; strange.)
That would mean the PIE did not make >binary< distinction between
'durative' and 'punctual', but made multi-polar action-type
distinctions.

>root-aorist for 'drank'.

So the same form means both 'took a sip' and 'drank'. What does it
mean for 'durative' vs 'punctual' as referring to >objective<
extent of time?

Nath Rao