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

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> I see no semantic difference between *gWHe:n and *bHo:r, or
> *pre:k^-s and *wo:kW-s.

Well, I do, or rather I generally accept Schindler's (1972) findings
concerning the meaning of root nouns and its relation to their apophony.
*gWHe:n can be a simple agent noun meaning 'striker, slayer', but *bHo:r
is not simply 'carrier', let alone '(act of) carrying', but 'habitually
carrying away', hence 'thief, smuggler', etc. Nouns like *pre:k^s and
*ne:k^s can be glossed as '(act of) praying' or '(act of) killing', but,
crucially, the "o-nominatives" are _never_ simple nomina actionis; they
are in most cases typical nomina rei actae. For example, *wo:kWs is
'what has been said', not '(act of) saying'.

The difference is understandably less clear when it comes to nomina
agentis, since the meaning of a simple agent noun can easily be extended
to incude habitual semantic shades. Still, there does seem to exist a
distinction similar to that between *d&3-té:r and *dóh3-to:r.

> As I understand Jens' theory, pre-PIE *e: should have
> resulted in "Narten-Ablaut" e: ~ e, that is to say, original
> **é: remains long, and original unstressed (pretonic) *e: is
> shortened and attracts the accent (*e:..' > *é). Pre-PIE
> *e:: [i.e. lengthened *e:] results in Ablaut o ~ e (as in
> *wodr [< **we:dr-h2] ~ *wedn-).

Right.

> My elaboration of Jens' theory is that pre-PIE still had
> three vowel qualities *a, *i and *u (long and short), the
> long variants of which result in the following Ablaut
> patterns:
>
> stressed pretonic
> *a: ó é
> *u: ó 0
> *i: é: 0
>
> The attested nominal patterns *pó:ds (*pódm.), *péd(o)s;
> pré:k^s (*pré:k^m.), pr.k^ós and *wódr, *udnós (perhaps
> *wódr, *wédnos if *wa:- instead of *u:-), *póntoHs,
> *pn.tHós, etc., with pre-PIE *a:, *i: and *u:, respectively,
> follow automatically from this.

What, then, is the nature of the relation betwen the verb root *prek^-
and the noun **pri:k^-?

Piotr