Re: [tied] Re: PIE Punctual and Durative

----- Original Message -----

From: Piotr Gasiorowski

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:51 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE Punctual and Durative

On 2006-12-28 02:28, Patrick Ryan wrote:

>
> The result of *bheré- is a thematic stem.

Why *bHeré- if all the relevant evidence points to *bHér-e/o-? (Simple
thematic stems are ALWAYS barytone.)

***

Repositioning of the stress-accent is a recognized grammatical device for PIE.

First, I think we need to think of vowels appearing as *Ø/e/o rather than simply as *e/o.

The language from which PIE was derived, distinguished *i/a/u, which were resolved in PIE as the Ablaut vowel, *A, which signifies *Ø/e/o.

Apparently, *A was more or less restricted, in earliest PIE, to *Ø when unstress-accented and *é when stress-accented.

Earliest PIE roots were derived from CVCV roots, which, when stress-accented on the root-vowel, acquired the form *CéCØ; when stress-accented on the final (thematic) vowel: *CeCé. Subsequently, the stress-accent on the final vowel was repositioned to the root syllable, without affecting the expression of the final vowel: *CéCe.

It appears that the expression of *A as *o is a later phenomenon.

***

 

> In at least three forms, where we should expect a primarily durative
> meaning, we find thematic stems:
>
> imperative: *bhere
>
> present: *bhereti (almost everyone considers *-i an independent
> element)
>
> imperfect: *He-bheret (almost everyone considers *He- an independent
> element, indicating non-present time)

I more or less agree, except for the contention that this is what we
find in the "earliest PIE". Simple thematics don't occur in Anatolian
and are only marginally represented in Tocharian. The productivity of the
formation is restricted to the "neo-IE" branches, and the hypothesis
that the *bHéreti verbs originated as subjunctives of root aorists is
well motivated and quite widely accepted these days.

Piotr

***

The explanation for small or no representation of thematics in Anatolian and Tocharian could be that they both developed away from an earlier thematic system while the "neo-IE" branches retained it. Equally plausible, of course, is that thematics are a "neo-IE" innovation.

Nothing is really impossible in this best of all possible worlds, but I confess skepticism when deriving *bhéreti from a subjunctive.

My understanding of the subjunctive is based on Lehmann; and he contends that the subjunctive is modally obligative or necessitative. I regard, like Torsten, a continuitive present to be difficultly derived from a subjunctive on a semantic basis.

 

Patrick

***