From: tgpedersen
Message: 53705
Date: 2008-02-19
>assigned the
> On 2008-02-19 13:33, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > I have always been puzzled about the _variety_ of consonants
> > function of 'present-forming'.Or could it be the other way round, that the dental 'extension' is
> >
> > 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.