From: Aigius
Message: 44691
Date: 2006-05-24
>and the extinct Balkan IE languages (Dacian, Thracian, Illyrian).
> Miguel, Piotr, Torsten et al:
>
> Please tell me what the link is between Balto-Slavic, Albanian
>Social science degree Social science education Bachelor of
> Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> I was thinking a bit about the i-verbs ("causatives-
> iteratives") in Balto-Slavic.
>
> The IE reconstruction of the present personal forms is
> pretty straightforward: we have a root (generally o-grade or
> zero-grade) followed by *-éi- and thematic endings.
>
> The expected Slavic outcome would have been:
>
> *-éi-o: > *-IjoN
> *-éi-esi > *-Ijes^I
> *-éi-et(i) > *-Ijet(I)
> *-éi-o-mes > *-IjemU (via *-éi-e-mos)
> *-éi-e-te(s) > *-Ijete
> *-éi-ont(i) > *-IjoNt(I)
>
> What we in fact have is:
>
> -joN
> -i~s^I
> -i~t(I)
> -i~mU
> -i~te
> -eNt(I)
>
> But in such a common verbal category I do not find irregular
> contraction (*ijV > *i~) very surprising.
>
> So if we have irregular contraction in Slavic, perhaps we
> can have it in Lithuanian too. The paradigm:
>
> -au
> -ai
> -o
> -ome
> -ote
> *-aN (=> ptc.praes. nom. pl)
>
> (similarly Latvian -u, -i, -a, -a:m, -a:t)
>
> might be explained by irregular loss of -j-, _after_ the
> generalization of /a/ as the thematic vowel in East Baltic.
> So, leaving out the 1st and 2nd person sg., we have:
>
> -ej-a-t > -ea > -a~
> -ej-a-me: > -eame: > -a~me
> -ej-a-te: > -eate: > -a~te
> -ej-a-nt > -eant > -a~nt
>
> I have the vague feeling I've seen this explanation
> somewhere else. Is that correct?
>
> That leaves the infinitive, where, despite the wildly
> different (i~ vs. a~) development in the present forms,
> Slavic and Baltic show remarkable agreement down to the
> (acute) intonation: Slavic -i"ti, Lith. -ýti. Where can
> this acute come from? There are a few possibilities in
> Slavic, but the Lithuanian form can, or so I think, only be
> explained as *-iH- (certainly not *-ei- or *-eiH-).
>
> This takes me back to an old idea of mine, that the
> causative-iterative is an old compund of verbal root
> (showing o-grade with "Rasmussen infix", which must have
> some meaning) plus the verb "to make" [ = Hittite iyami,
> iyezzi etc.] This would also explain the intercalation of
> the preverb pV- [Hitt. piyami, piyezzi] in Vedic
> causatives-iteratives such as dha:-páya "cause to put",
> jña-páya "cause to know", etc.
>
> The verbal root in question is given in LIV as *Hyeh1-
> "werfen". I see no unsurmountable problems in assuming the
> verb was grammaticalized as a causative marker, and in the
> process metathesized to *(H)eih1-e- (and besides, the
> Hittite form can easily be from original *Heih1-e-,
> postponing the metathesis of the independent verb to a later
> stage ancestral to Greek ie:mi and Latin iacio:). The first
> laryngeal is lost in the composition, the second one is
> taken care of by the thematic vowel and the syllable break,
> so: *R-weid Héih1-e-ti > *woidéyeti "he makes see".
>
> The second laryngeal does surface in the Balto-Slavic
> infinitive, which is athematic and stressed on the ending
> *-té(:)i, leaving the causative marker in zero grade
> *-(H)ih1-. That would explain the Balto-Slavic acute.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Online social science degree Social science course
>Service.
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "cybalist" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and
>