From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 53711
Date: 2008-02-19
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE -*C-presents
> 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).
***
Well, I suppose it would be vaguely possible to connect -*d- with *do:- but
at what advantage, if any?
***
>
> 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).
***
This would be another "suspicious" present: -*to springs readily to mind as
a nominal suffix.
***
> *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
***
Darn! That was the one I thought had a hope of being verbal.
Thank you for your comments. You cautiously seem to be leaning in the same
direction.
What would you think of applying this further to -*n-presents?
Patrick