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

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:36:41 +0200, 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'.

Rob's remark is crucial: is there any root which has both
forms? If not, I'd be inclined to think the distinction is
lexical.

>> 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^-?

The relation between the verb root **prik^- (> *prek^-) and
the noun **pri:k^- (> *pre:k^-) would be that between base
form and vrddhied derivative. Likewise **bhar- > *bher- and
**bha:r- > *bhor- (**bhu(:)r- is also possible), and **uk >
*wekW- and **u:k > *wokW-.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...