On 2008-02-19 13:33, Patrick Ryan wrote:
> I have always been puzzled about the _variety_ of consonants assigned the
> function of 'present-forming'.
>
> In looking at PIE root 2. *(s)p(h)er-, 'strew, shatter', for which Pokorny
> indicates a "d-Präsens", I wondered if it could make more sense to regard a
> form *spre-d- as a noun denominalized and pressed into service as a verbal
> present.
LIV has only four "d-presents", all with question marks, but there are
also puzzling cases like *g^Heud- 'pour' (beside *g^Heu-), where the
"extension" *-d- is not a present marker (Latin shows a nasal present,
as if from *gHuned-/*g^Hund-). The very notion of a "d-present" seems
doubtful to me. In some cases we may be dealing with an old derivational
suffix (no longer functional or productive in PIE proper).
There are two "t-presents" listed in the index of LIV (*pek^t-e/o-
'comb' and *plek(^)t-e/o- 'twine' -- no question marks, but can one
define a category based on just two examples?). A third one is claimed
in the introduction, but not identified in my edition (2001).
*dH-presents" are a little more numerous and in my opinion may have
developed out of compound verbs with a verbal root noun as the first
element and the _aorist_ root *dHeh1- as the second, if you want some
speculation. I doubt if they are original presents at all, and so *-dH-
as a "present-forming" suffix may be a misnomer.
Piotr