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

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

> From: "nathrao" <nathrao@...>

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

> > > From: "nathrao" <nathrao@...>

> > > > --- 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.

How about this: "I carried the eggs home. But, on the way I dropped
them and they broke. So when I reached home, I had no eggs to make
omlets with.".

> Languages change when speakers perceive an innovation as advantageous.

Why don't you take a look at Bybee et al, "The evolution of grammar"
and tell us why all the changes documented there are
advantageous?

> 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.

May be, so you can say, "I carried the book home", instead of
"I carried the book. I reached home with the book in my
possession."

> 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".

Then what was the root aorist doing?

> 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).

So, according to you "accomplishments" (in the terminology of
Vendler) is not a valid category in any language?

> "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?

Find an attested or contemporary language which make exactly the
same distinctions.

> 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'.

Well, does 'smaller duration, imagined as a point' have a limit?
What about 'walked for the whole day'? Is it durative or can it
subjectively imagined to be 'punctual'? [The point is that the
latter is what is seen in all known languages that have a
perfective vs imperfective distinction. PIE is alledged to
be uniquely different.]