Re: [tied] Thematic root aorist

On 2006-07-22 02:44, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> The tudáti-type is rare compared with the bhárati-type
> (426-52 in LIV), but that rather speaks against the
> tudáti-type being secondary.

These statistics are of course valid only for the "neo-IE" languages
(excluding Tocharian and Anatolian).

> If I may plug my a/i/u-theory once more, from that point of
> view, neither the tudáti nor the bhárati type is older than
> the other, and in fact they represent originally the same
> type.

I'm now inclined to think that the <tudáti> oxytones are _all_ original
middles turned active (I have yet to see a zero-grade subjunctive),
while the <bHárati> type may be of mixed origin. The overwhelming
majority are subjunctives of athematic stems (e.g. "neo-thematic"
*gWém-e/o-, beside older *gWm.-jé/ó- and *gWm.-sk^é/ó-, from aor.
*gWém-t/*gWm-ént), but some of them may be based on middles of Narten
verbs. Such a development is perfectly possible e.g. in the case of
*h3rég^-e/o- (Lat. regit, Gk. orégei), from the original Narten present
*h3ré:g^-ti/*h3rég^-n.ti.

> If we take it as granted that thematic subjunctives /
> presents were indeed originally vrddhi formations (the
> reason why is of course hard to determine: perhaps the
> hesitation expressed by the subjunctive was expressed as
> lengthening of the root vowel), a form like *bhéreti was
> originally *bha:rát(i),

A neat idea, to cite an adjective just discussed.

> with lengthened root vowel and
> stress on the thematic vowel, then *bherét(i), with
> shortening, but not loss, of the long vowel, and finally
> *bhéret(i), with accent retraction to the first full vowel,
> and remarkable, but standard, preservation of the thematic
> vowel in unstressed position. Verbs of the tudáti-type were
> formed exactly the same, except that they had an intrinsic
> vowel *i or *u, lengthened to *i: and *u:, which unlike *a:,
> _was_ reduced in unstressed position: *tu:dát(i) >
> *t(w)dét(i) > *tudét(i) [c.q. *ti:wdáti > *twdét(i) >
> *tudét(i)]. The vast majority of verbs would therefore seem
> to have had intrinsic *a-vocalism. The tudáti-type is the
> result of phonetic accident, which explains its marginal but
> solid attestation in Indo-European, including Anatolian.

This still doesn't explain why the supposedly dominant type doesn't
occur in Anatolian at all. For the moment at least I prefer Jens's
explanation: the entire category of "subjunctive" was lost in Anatolian,
and since the bHárati-stems were still subjunctives at that point (as
they are, for the most part, in Tocharian!), they were lost together
with the whole lot.

Piotr