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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> 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'.

Is there any verbal root which has both forms? (I ask because, so
far, it seems that the answer is "no". For example, there is no word
*bhe:r to contrast with *bho:r.)

> 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.

I would rather say that those two forms were coined at different
stages in IE's development, *dxWté:r being older and *déxWto:r being
younger.

- Rob