Hi!
Thanks for the comfort words! Until now I just read the answers and
thought about it, consulting everything I could for now. Before I wrote the
first message of this now a week old subject, I had read superficially the
"Comparative Indo-European Linguistics" by Beekes, and "Las Lenguas
Indoeuropeas" by Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat. I visited briefly the
"Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin", by Buck, but this one I didn't
find very helpful. I'm still wrestling with the first two, but now at least
I am more calm : ). Indeed I had read about PIE about a year ago, without
desperate interest, but now I'm learning Latin and saving courage for
starting Greek too next year, maybe Sanskrit too. I thought it would be
mneumonically helpful to know PIE, well, now I think I was wrong, but it's
still very rewarding.
About my first message, I meant that the laryngeal on *h1es- would
explain why in the third of plural there is 'e' in Latin <estis>, and Greek
<esté>, but I feel it's not such good an exemple, as it could come from
analogy with the singular forms. Anyway, I'm almost convinced that there
were laryngeals, or something else in their place. It's just doxa, opinion,
far away from epistéme, true knowledge...
The verbal system is really puzzling, and both books I'm reading are
very short about it. The best thing that reached my eyes until now is "An
Overview of the Proto-Indo-European Verb System", by the very owner of this
list, and about this I felt I was in the right place indeed. Anyway, I still
have some doubts:
Beekes tells about three types, the root, the thematic and the sigmatic
ones. If one is attested on a root, all others are excluded of the same one?
If the meaning of a root is by itself aorist in aspect, what about the
present? For instance, the verb *doh3?- 'to give'.
If the meaning of a root is by itself durative in aspect, what type of
aorist would be used?
I have more, but it's wise to not abuse ; ). I don't know about you all,
but always when I find something new to understand, I enslave myself until I
have it understood. O gosh, I should start running by hobby for a change...
Edgard.
----- Original Message -----
From: "P&G" <G&P@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 5:19 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] *es- or *h1es- ?
> For only two weeks' reading, Edgard, you're doing remarkably well!
>
> You'll have seen from the postings that there is still some debate about
the
> laryngeals, and some people, on either side, are passionate about their
> belief. The consensus, as far as I understand it, is that laryngeals can
be
> reconstructed before so many initial vowels, that it's probable there were
> no initial vowels in PIE.
>
> You show a reconstruction of the verb to be, and speak of the "loss of -e-
> on the
> > plural persons on present". This is in fact a regular phenomenon, not
> > dependant on the presence of a laryngeal. I note that you rightly show
> > the shift in accent in these forms. It isn't that in this verb the "a
of
> > the present [in Skt] diasppears" - rather it is the regular pattern of
> > this type of verb in Sanskrit and PIE in general.
>
> Beekes has been recommended to you. If you get on OK with that, you
could
> look at Szemerenyi "Introduction to IE linguistics", which is much more
> detailed - though anti-laryngeal!
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>