From: tgpedersen
Message: 43039
Date: 2006-01-20
> So I thought: If the IE Nordwestblock language (which must beenand 'dangling
> a 'primitive', ie. early language, cf its two genders
> prepositions', like Hittite) had been a language in which the IEmiddle
> verbal stem and ending had not yet fused into one word, then a
> (or rather impersonal) form would have looked like (with S-Vinversion)
>_could_ write what you have written above:
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Torsten, quite frankly, I am surprised that anyone on this list
>it lacks inflections that contemporaneous languages had, it has
> 1) no language - at any time in its history - is 'primitive'; if
>Yes, that's why I put quotes around it.
> 2) one gender, two genders, three genders, or multiple nounclasses, or no gender - all are equally unprimitive;
>Whatever.
> 3) there are no dangling prepositions in Hittite; there areprepositions qua adverbs there are differently syntactically
>Six of one ...
> 4) fusion is not progress nor decline.Yes, yes.
>
> The underlying, tacit assumption is that manifestations of IEgrammar and syntax as we know them are somehow "advanced", which is
>I will see if I can find it in my heart to forgive you that you
> Which means we would explain the tendency towards non-inflectionin
> verbs in Northern Germanic (it was never there in the substrate)and
> the form of the middle with one idea.can be
>
>
> I think I read a long time ago that in Celtic the 3rd sg middle
> used in all persons and numbers. Is that so?did learn to speak it, they learned imperfectly, and retained some
>
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> The explanation is far simpler.
>
> Far North Europeans did not originally speak IE; and when they
>Yes, that is what 'substrate' means. I which way do you believe this