--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2006-08-30 18:02, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >>>> [Piotr:] Give me a single example of reduplication
> >>>> distinguishing singular from plural forms in an IE verb or
> >>>> noun.
>
> >>> [Torsten:] Morphologically, OHG bibo:n vs. Slavic bojati.
>
> >> [Piotr:] These are not sg. vs. pl. forms. All reduplicated
formations in PIE
> >> are reduplicated in the singular as well as the plural.
> >
> > [Torsten:] 'Morphologically', he wrote. Can't you read?
>
> <bibo:n> is "morphologically plural" and <bojati> is
> "morphologically singular"? Look here, Torsten, I believe that
> my request was rather simple and framed in unambiguous terms.
I daresay it was, and you insisted on asking it in terms I was
proposing to supersede.
> I didn't ask for examples of reduplicated verbs with iterative
> or intensive meanings -- I know many myself. I asked for examples
> of reduplication distinguishing the singular of a verb (or noun)
> from the plural (the singular from the plural, mind you, not
> any "parallel concepts" instead; you claim you know what
> "plural" means). You have not provided any such examples so far.
That's right. And I've answered you: I don't know any
examples. There aren't any. Just as there are no R-affixes.
> >>>> But there are also other uses of reduplication,
> >>> In my opinion, they are logically derivative.
> >> Well, it's just an empty claim. Where's the evidence?
> >
> > Logically, he wrote.
>
> Prove it, then.
>
But there is nothing to prove! It's a question within semantics.
I'm referring to a branch of formal logic known as situational
logic. It's like this: in the classical theory of formal logic,
the interpretation function mapped terms (linguistics: NPs) to
objects in the real world (namely those they denoted) and
statements directly to truth values (true or false). In
situational logic, there are two mappings: an interpretation
function which maps terms to objects and statements to
*situations*, imagined or real, and a truth function which maps
from those entities to a truth value.
Now once 'situation' has been introduced as an ens, statements can
be divided into (among a lot of things) two categories: those that
refer to one situation only, and those that refer to a set of
several situations. The latter category includes the subcategory
of those which refer to sets of situations initiated by several
agents and the subcategory of those which refer to sets of
situations initiated by the same agent. Since that latter category
exists, the verbs of such sentences could, for practical reasons,
in living languages be marked, eg. by reduplication, to indicate
that they should be understood as belonging to that category,
ie. as referring to a set of situations.
Apart from that, this is the situation:
We agree that reduplication means plurality, iteration or
intensity.
In the classical theory, the perfect is reduplicated.
Where is the sense in that? No plurality, iteration or
intensity here.
I propose that only the pl. of the perfect was originally
reduplicated. That makes sense.
Further, I propose to connect the sg. of the perfect with the
many o-grade-derivatives by claiming a simple prefix for
both of them. The classical theory has no such connection.
Torsten