--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
> > >> A couple of aorist injunctives probably functioned like plain
> > >> imperatives already in PIE: *dHéh1-s 'put!' and *dóh3-s 'give!'
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah, nice, there's my subitive stem. Hittite pahsi "protect!" etc
> > > should then have been emendated by adding imperative *-ei/*-i
> > > (cf. Slavic) to that perceived stem. Shouldn't they have
> > > vr.ddhi, BTW?
> >
> > No. *dHeh1-s has the 2sg. -s, which doesn't cause any lengthening
> > anywhere.
>
>
> Right of course. In the standard theory it's stressed normal grade
> in 123sg, unstressed zero grade in 123pl for presents, excepting
> Narten roots, and for root aorists. In Schmalstieg's version they
> are distributed on 23sg,2pl and 1sg,13pl respectively instead.
Eugen Hill
http://www.indogermanistik.lmu.de/VrddhiKonj.pdf
argues as follows about the Narten presents
"
Die tatsächlich überlieferten unzweideutig als 'Narten-Präsentien' zu
bestimmenden Bildungen des älteren Ved. weisen in der Wz. ihrer
schwachen Stamm-Alternante im Akt. ausschließlich, im Med. oft
tiefstufige Wz. auf: man vgl. aus dem RV 3.Sg.Inj. staut, Ind. a-staut
~ 1.Pl.Ind. stumási, 3.Pl.Ind. stuvanti, 2.Sg.Ipv. stuhí und 1.Sg.Ind.
má:rjmi ~ 3.Pl.Ind. mr.jánti, 3.Sg.Inj.M. mr.s.t.a. Die tiefstufigen
Flexionsformen der 'Narten-Präsentien' vom Typ ved. stumási und
mr.jánti erklärt man seit Narten (1968) durch die Annahme einer
analogischen Angleichung an die Wz.-Präsentien mit gewöhnlichem
Ablaut zwischen betonter Voll- und unbetonter Tiefstufe. Man muß sich
allerdings fragen (vgl. bereits Lindeman 1972: 71), über welche Formen
diese Analogie gewirkt hätte: ein 'Narten-Präsens' vom Typ uriir.
*má:rj^- ~ *márj^- (die übliche Rekonstruktion) würde mit dem
'gewöhnlichen' Wz.-Präsens wie z.B. uriir. *ráijH- ~ *rijH-´
eigentlich keinerlei Berührungspunkte aufweisen.
...
Somit legt der Befund des älteren Ved. für den Inj.-Ind. der
'Narten-Präsentien' nicht die übliche Rekonstruktion uridg. *sté:w- ~
*stéw- nahe, sondern das wie man zugeben muß ablauttheoretisch
etwas seltsame uridg. *sté:w- ~ *stu-´.
"
In other words, if we look at facts alone, we must assume some verbs
had alternation between lengthened and zero grade. Outside the present
they had full-grade forms, eg. stos.am.
I don't have access to Narten's article; these are the Narten verbs I
find in Burrow:
stauti, which has an extended stem of the same meaning stubh
yauti, which has an extended stem of the same meaning yuj
ma:rjti, of which I know nothing
On this small material, I dare the following proposal: lengthened
grade in Narten roots is caused by loss of extension (which is no
extension at all but the lost tail of the root) in the 2,3sg
secondary, caused by he loss of ending there. The two separate roots
arose by generalizing from the full and mutilated roots. The
grammarians refused to contemplate the idea that a root could be
mutilated and therefore chalked them both up as roots.
The full injunctive paradigm would have looked like
steubhom
ste:u
ste:u
stubhomé
stubheté
stubhént
and
yeugom
ye:u
ye:u
yungomé
yungeté
yungént
and
marj^ I don't know what to do with.
This might be the origin of long-diphthong roots too.
Torsten