Re: [tied] Thematic root aorist

On 2006-07-16 04:43, Andrew Jarrette wrote:

> Why did athematic aorist subjunctives have zero grade?

Because the vowel of the subjunctive suffix (*-e-) was accented. Well,
in fact, the simple thematic presents have root accent, which presumably
means that the oldest of them, those on which the "standardisation" of
the pattern came to be based, were derived from lengthened-grade
aorists. Cf. the behaviour of Narten presents (with an underlying long
vowel): Skt. 3.sg. indic. stáuti (*sté:u-ti), subj. stávati
(*stéw-e-ti). The vowel of the "weak" allomorph is shortened but not
lost, and since it remains full, the accent gets retracted from the suffix.

> Shouldn't
> they have the forms of the s-aorist or the root aorist (i.e.
> lengthened grade or full grade (or did the root aorist have zero
> grade in the dual and plural?)) plus the subjunctive endings? And
> why would middles (I assume from the imperfect?) have zero grade?

The original middle endings were accented and so enforced the zero grade
of the root in the mobile ablauting paradigms. Cf. the hypothetical root
aorist (inj.) *weid-t vs. middle *wid-é.

> I'm just a little confused by these ideas of the origin of the
> thematic root aorist. Actually, I've just realized I'm not sure I
> understand what is meant by "thematic _root_ aorist" -- I originally
> thought he meant aorists that have the thematic vowel before the
> endings, but maybe he means something else? Perhaps you could
> clarify on this matter for me.

It was obvious to me that Edgard meant plain (unreduplicated) thematic
aorists, so I didn't bother to correct his terminology. However, the
term "root aorist" should in fact be reserved for bare roots used as
aorist stems (the *kWér-t/*kWr-ént type).

Piotr