Re: [tied] Re: PIE comparative

----- Original Message -----

From: Piotr Gasiorowski

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:34 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE comparative

On 2006-01-19 01:05, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> The precise semantics of the
> 'be' and 'stand' elements still eludes me, but I'm still thinking :)
>
> Piotr
>
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> In my opinion, the likeliest explanation for the element -*is- in
> comparative and superlative construct is *yes-, 'indeed'; an affirmative
> particle.
>
> ***

Problems: (1) There is no other trace of such a particle (Eng. yes comes
from OE gese, gyse, gise, historically a combination of the affirmative
adverb <ge:(a)> with <si:e>, the subjunctive of 'to be'). (2) The funny
features of PIE adjective gradation (the full grade, the long -i:- of
Skt. -i:yas- and Gk. -i:o:n, the *-on- extension in Greek, Germanic and
perhaps Baltic) are not accounted for.

If the comparative and the superlative are not based directly on
adjectival stems but rather on related nouns, they are formations
parallel to Skt. bala-stHa- 'powerful, vigorous' (= 'in a position of
strength'), only more archaic.

***

Patrick:

As for "trace", I am not sure what your reaction to the existence of the Egyptian particle _js_ would be; in most employments, 'indeed' seems a good translation. For me this is highly suggestive through Nostratic. It is, of course, also possible to not wish to give this _any_ weight or consideration at all in this discussion. Would you at least grant it is an interesting coincidence?

One advantage of regarding -*is- as the zero-grade of a particle meaning 'indeed' is that it would be natural to find it with _both_ nouns and adjectives — either one of which, depending on the speaker's perception of connectedness — might function _as_ a comparative.

 

Another advantage would be that if *yes were a particle rather than an affix per se — at least for some early periods in some derived languages — we could feel comfortable seeing  the word it affirms in full-grade, and with no shift in stress-accent to the right or zero-grade as we, I hope you would agree, often expect in the connection N + affix.

 

My feeling is that in the earliest (pre-)PIE, -*ró 'intensives' probably fulfilled the function of comparatives, and that where we find them preserved, they are really fossilized 'comparatives/intensives' (sorry, Marius).

 

This would mean that *yes is not earlier or later than -*ró but that, as far as the comparative is concerned the syntactic preference is just earlier/later/regional.

 

***