From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 45479
Date: 2006-07-23
>On 2006-07-22 02:44, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:That is indeed strange.
>
>> 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'sPerhaps the tudáti-verbs were not completely lost in
>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.