[tied] Re: PIE Punctual and Durative

From: tgpedersen
Message: 46798
Date: 2006-12-27

> > >
> > > It is my view that earliest PIE had two verbal stems:
> > >
> > > punctual: *bhér-
> > > durative: *bheré-
> > >
> > > both derived from *bhere-.
> > >
> > > I presume that many on the list would disagree.
> >
> > We might contend your reasons for maintaining that view, if we
> > knew what they were.
>
> I have explained my reasons for this _many_ times on this list.

Please remind me what they are.


> > What I am therefore interested in finding out is if anyone on
> > the list agrees or disagrees with the following statement:
>
> Ah, being tactical.
>
> > 1) PIE had any process (at least, one, excepting lexical) for
> distinguishing punctual and durative verbal employment.
>
> > I think verb stems could be extended with an -s- to form what I
> > would call a subitive stem (for want of better term), which was
> > used to build some aorist and future forms. It was made by falsely
> > dividing a 2sg injunctive in -si as a stem in -s- plus imp2sg
> > ending -ei/-i.
> > Because of the natural semantics of commands, the stem came to
> > have inceptive meaning. The -s- was then back-constructed into
> > the aorist
> > subjunctive. Since 3sg pret was originally endingless, the
> > 'subitive' stem in -s- was used there as is, or as a 3sg future.
> > Later full paradigms were constructed around this stem.
>
> My own view is that *-s(V) was an independent formative with the
> base meaning of 'single', and that, at least originally, it was
> added to lexically durative verbs _only_ to produce a _lexical_
> punctual verb.
>

I think some lexical stems were produced from the subitive stem.

> > > Secondarily, if it did, what the function of this distinction
> > > was semantically.
>
> > The function of distinguishing between durative and punctual stems
> > was to distinguish between durative and punctual situations.
>
> Well said. Now, how would you distinguish between a durative and
> punctual situation?

I don't think *I* would. I think they are Kantian a priori categories.


Torsten