From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 40052
Date: 2005-09-16
----- Original Message -----
From: "nathrao" <nathrao@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:23 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: IE thematic presents and the origin of their thematic
vowel
> --- 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?]
***
Patrick:
Yes, I believe one could: "As I carried the book home, I dropped it."
"home", here, is semantically "homeward".
Yes, again. "vector" is just direction defined by an object rather than an
orientation.
***
> > 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?
>
> >
> > ***
***
Patrick:
Languages change when speakers perceive an innovation as advantageous.
One of the major avenues of change is specificity. When *-m was first
applied by some small group to mark an animate accusative, making this
distinction was perceived by the large group as advantageous, and the
innovation was generally adopted.
But, let us say, a small group began using their word for "carry"
(progressive/durative) to mean "bring" (non-progressive/punctual). What
could be the advantage in blurring a valid distinction? Such an aberrant use
would have been censored by not being generally adopted.
I believe ancient speakers were very prescriptionist.
***
> > > 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.
***
Patrick:
Let me say first that our sight into these matters is always going to be
slightly out of focus but, if I am right, -*s specified a singular action:
"I take a step" as opposed to non-singulative: "I take steps, I walk".
Obviously, the singulative lends itself to an _implication_ of inceptive
(first step) or terminative (last step). 'Terminative' could mean 'finish
walking' (terminative) as well as 'reach by walking' (perfective).
"Drink", on the other hand, seems to have been in PIE a description of
'consume a definite quantity of liquid' rather than 'imbibe', 'perfective' =
'drink up' (perfective). To mean 'drink (over a period of time)',
reduplication was necessary: 'consume (some measure of liquid) repeatedly,
i.e. iterative.
I do not find this strange. Is it strange that 'cut' is transitive and 'go'
is not?
I probably am with you here but I have never run across "polar" is this
context. Could you explain further?
***
> >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?
***
Patrick:
See above. Probably 'take/took a sip' is legitimate, even without some
further marker to indicate 'diminutive' or 'partitive'.
Let us first consider that even 'taking a sip' involves a quantity, though
short, of time.
All action is fundamentally 'durative'.
'Punctual' is really not opposed per se to 'durative' but merely abstracts
from a duration a smaller duration, imagined as a point. Not 'black' and
'white' but 'black' and 'gray'.
So, in my opinion, 'objective' extent of time is not applicable here. We are
dealing purely with 'subjective' appreciations.
***
> Nath Rao