Re: [tied] Comments on Beekes' pre-Greek

My opinion about the different historical layers of indo-european verb morphology is like this :

Recent layers :

auxiliaries be and have etc

suffixes latin -ba ; Germanic -dh- etc

Somehow ancient layers :

two sets of pronominal endings

Apophony e (present) versus o (past)

this is the standard Indo-European dealt with by orthodox Comparatists

Oldest layer :

infix -n- (action under progress)

infix -t- (action completed)

the -t- of completed action is that of Akkadian.

If you look at Akkadian,

you can see that vowel a is present tense while u is past

just like in Indo-European

In the rest of Semitic, it is the contrary a is past and u is present.

ARabic -t- seems to be of different origin

and Arabic vocalic schemes have wiped out any traces of earlier systems.

Among Semitic, Akkadian is closest to Indo-European.

And it also shares a general weakness of glottal-laryngeal-velar consonants.

the d- of medio-passive is akin to kabyle #t?

In Kabyle, it has full meaning and turns an active verb into a passive or medio-passive verb.

In Indo-European, this power is lost and #d- is a pleonastic addition.

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

From: Rick McCallister

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:44 PM

Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Comments on Beekes' pre-Greek

Can you elaborate: I know Arabic has a t- prefix for
verbs

--- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@ wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

> I think there are two affixes :
>
> 1. #d- prefix :
> this prefix is often a useless pleonastic addition
> to roots that already have medio-passive meaning
> akru dakru : "shed tears"
> yew dyew :"be day light"
> rew srew drew : "flow (as of water)"
>
> 2. -t- infix
> this infix appear about only in Greek
> Semantics is thus unclear when you remain inside
> Indo-European framework.
>
> We are not supposed to make macro-comparative talk
> on this site
> but you have to know that these two affixes have
> obvious counterparts in Afro-Asiatic languages.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: etherman23
> To: cybalist@... s.com
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 6:59 AM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied]
> Comments on Beekes' pre-Greek
>
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, "fournet.arnaud"
> <fournet.arnaud@ ...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Why not dare posit an -t- infix in Indo-European
> ?
> >
> > this explains :
> >
> > kwel "inhabit" => polis + ptolis
> > => polemos + ptolemos
> >
> > bhegh "to beg" => English beg Grec ptokh-
> > (Both words are supposed to be isolated)
> >
> > Most words in Greek with starting with pt and kt
> are infixed with -t-.
>
> I've always wondered about a *d prefix. In those
> words beginning with
> *p the *d prefix assimilates in voicing to *t then
> undergoes
> metathesis. We also have the *ak'ru~*dak' ru pair.
> This would also
> explain those instances in Greek that have initial
> z where other
> languages point to initial y (generally the
> multiple reflexes of PIE
> #*y are explained by assuming a laryngeal).
>
> Possibly the prefix was *dH. The *dH could still
> assimilate to *t
> whereas *dHak'ru > *dak'ru because of the root
> constraints on voiced
> aspirates and plain voiceless not co-occurring in
> roots. I'm not sure
> what PIE *dHy is reflected as in Greek. The only
> thing I could find at
> the Tower of Babel site was a single root where
> *dHy > Greek s. The
> *dH prefix would also explain the *ag'H~*dHag' H
> variant.
>
> But whether it's a prefix or infix, what are the
> semantics?
>
>
>
>

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers. yahoo.com/ dir/?link= list&sid= 396545469