From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 42867
Date: 2006-01-10
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:39 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with'
>
> > > > That n/r alternation looks similar to that of the
> heteroclitic
> > > > neuter nouns and that postulated for the 3rd pl. ending, -n(t)-
> vs
> > > > -r-. Is the mechanism similar, ie that the -r- was once a
> > > > word-final -n# (and after it changed a thematic vowel was
> added)?
> > >
> > > Yes, I think it's basically the same mechanism. Namely, *-to-, *-
> no-
> > > and *-ro- arose as different thematisations of the same original
> > > suffix -- participial *-(e)nt-. The source of the *-r- variant
> may
> > > have been the the neuter form of the participle, *-n(t)# > *-r,
> > > analogically influencing forms with non-final *n;
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > > Piotr
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Much by coincidence I am these days thinking exactly about that.
> > Wrestling against it would be more fair to my current state :).
> > Anyway, about the present primary desinences of the athematic
> verbs,
> > for instance, please, could anyone help me to understand it's
> origin?
>
***
Patrick:
There is no advantage to be gained by spelling 'its' 'it's' that I can
perceive.
***
>
> Here's what I think:
>
> 1st and 2nd pl. are late. I'll leave them out.
>
> The three desinences of the singular are originally deictic
> particles, corresponding to the Hittite conjunctions 'nu', 'sa'
> and 'ta' , originally in PIE meaning "this (at me)", "that (at
> thee)", "yon (at him)", respectively. The fourth one is
> *-en 'someone/thing' (somewhere). They are appended (or not) to the
> verbal root, which is by nature a verbal noun.
***
Patrick:
I do not believe there is any connection between these particles and the
endings of the first and second persons.
In my opinion, 'nu' is a topicalizer, like some usages of English 'now'.
'sa' implies causality; somewhat like English 'so'.
'ta' designates a temporal setting different from the setting of the current
dialog, either past or future.
-*n(V) (not -*en) is a collective, used verbally for 'all of us', inclusive,
I.e. probably including members of our group not actually party to the
current conversation, in contrast with -*m, 'conversant' (1st singular) or
'conversants' (1st plural).
***
> 1st V-nu > V-m or V-o:
> meaning "this V-ing (at me)"
***
Patrick:
There would be no example of PIE *nu becoming *m if this is not it;
consequently, like the -*n-infix, I do not believe it is probable though, of
course, anything is possible.
-*o: is, I believe, an abbreviated -*ye/o, which originally simply signified
a 'male' speaking, with compensatory lengthening for the loss of *y; same
formant used later to form -*o-stems (but possibly derived from yet another
*ye/o meaning 'object' although less probable, in my opinion though
derivation from both is also possible; I doubt this because homophonous
endings certainly would not have conveyed much semantically). The immediate
cause of the reduction was to eliminate homophony with -*ye/o, an adjective
formant ('like').
> 2nd V-sa > V-s
> meaning "that V-ing (at thee)"
> 3rd V or
> V-ta > V-t
> meaning "yon V-ing (at him)"
> indefinite V-en > V-r- (3rd pl. or impersonal, middle) or
> meaning "some V-ing (somewhere)"
***
Patrick:
Yes, I agree that -*r signified 'any'. I just do not believe it is necessary
or desirable to derive it from an earlier -*n. We should connect it rather
with the cluster of words around *re:(i)-, 'number, count'.
Around the world, the third person singular is statistically mostly -*Ø; I
would suggest that that was probably the situation in earliest PIE.
The later (in my opinion) -*t is the demonstrative *t(h)o, loosely 'around'
the speech situation so not part of it.
The really challenging one is 2nd p. -*s. If we regard -*m as 'conversant',
one logical candidate is -*s, 'unique singular', but how one achieves a
hypothesis with a higher degree of probability, I do not currently know.
***
> V-en-ta > V-nt- (3rd pl.)
> meaning "the V-ing (somewhere)"
>
> Because the desinences originate in deictics they are sometimes
> confused (2nd sg -t, 3rd sg. 2 -s and -m). It wouldn't have happened
> if they had originated in pronouns.
***
Patrick:
As our ancestors met and mingled with new groups, they were fully capable of
confusing anything - and frequently did.
***
> -i is originally a postposition which occurs also in the locative
> *-i and dative (*-ey) of Nouns. Added to the above forms it becomes
> *-mi "in my V-ing"
> *-si "in thy V-ing"
> etc.
***
Patrick:
-*i is a 'relational', 'like'. Besides simply forming slightly
differentiated nouns '-like/feminine from masculine) and adjectives, its
principal use was to form genitives but not necessarily possessives. In the
case of verbs, it makes a static concept dynamic, most easily considered a
'progressive'.
The dative is a derivation from *hei- (*Hey), 'go to', related to -*I only
in the sense that it is used as a formant.
***
>
> Torsten
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>