Re: Athematic PIE 2sg imperative

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > AfaIk the consensus is that the PIE 2sg imperative suffix was
> > *-dhi. But Jasanoff discusses some in *-si (eg Hittite pahsi
> > "protect!"). I was wondering if the PIE suffix wasn't *-i, or
> > rather an ablauting *-ei/*-i (cf Russian derz^í, búd´), and
> > that *-dhi was instead the imperative of *dheh1- "put" (which I
> > suspect is also behind various past suffixes in the style of
> > *-ta)?
>
>
> Why to use a 'put'-suffix for a 'come on!' construction (for
> example)?

Dutch uses 'doen' + noun in a lot of expressions. Besides "do",
that verb also means "put" ('in de tas doen' "put in one's
pocket"). Besides I think Germanic *do:- and PIE *dheh1- must
be related.

> But on the other hand, I also sustain the idea that ALL ancient
> suffixes (so PIE 2sg imperative suffix *-dhi too) were originally
> distinct words : this is the reason for that I have asked here
> about possible <verb+verb> PIE constructions ...

Strictly interpreted, <verb> + <verb> constructions are impossible.
<verb> + <object noun> aren't. Therefore I have to claim in this
case that stem before *-dhi is a nominal form of the verb, ie.
participle or verbal noun. But I have to claim that the verb stem
is a nominal form also for other reasons.

> As a result I think also that a PIE ancestor language didn't have
> any flexionary form

If you go back far enough, true.


Torsten