Re: o-grade thoughts

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2006-08-30 01:53, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> What is your evidence for original plurality rather than the
> >> duration and/or intensity that the usage now conveys?
> >>
> >
> > Partly logical: the idea is that a reduplicated verb stem
> > (and its nominal derivates) would designate several
> > occurrences of the type of event the root of the reduplicated
> > stem designates. Duration and intensity are logically, as far
> > as I can tell, derivative concepts of plurality (via the concept
> > of repetition).
>
> Brian and I asked for _evidence_, not for a preconceived opinion.

I don't think of reasoning from semantics as preconceived opinion.
It's that type of reasoning you'll have to do if want to construct
a data representation language, eg. for data bases. Didn't you
once study computer sciuence?

> It's the idea of serial repetition/continuality, not
> simultaneous plurality, that seems to have underlain PIE
> reduplication.

'Serial repetition' and 'simultaneous plurality' both denote a
*set*, ie a collective of several occurrences, which may be
sequential or simiultaneous among themselves. *That* is what
I meant; you misunderstand.

> In my "rode and rode" example you have _one_ agent riding away,
> and the repetition of the verb may express one prolonged,
> monotonous action, not multiple stages thereof.

It meant multiple stages thereof, from there it came to
mean continuous action.

> If I say "we rode and rode", I repeat the verb not because two
> or more people are involved but because of the nature of
> the activity.

Exactly. See above.

> Give me a single example of reduplication distinguishing
> singular from plural forms in an IE verb or noun.
>

Morphologically, OHG bibo:n vs. Slavic bojati.

> > Partly linguistic: reduplication is used in general in the
> > world's languages to designate plurality,
>
> But there are also other uses of reduplication,

In my opinion, they are logically derivative.

> and there are other ways of marking grammatical number.

You don't say.

> Typological considerations don't carry
> any weight if there's no shred of evidence to support them.

In the Popper scheme, considerations carry little weight in
the build-up phase. The proof is in the eating of the theory:
Does it stand or fall?


Torsten