Re: PIE -*C-presents

Arnaud, to me, absence of a PIE passive is quite clear.

First off, there is no communicational need for a passive that an indefinite
active construction cannot convey; it is a purely rhetorical embellishment.

Passive should not be confused with perfective but often is.

Sumerian is typical: one actor - action verb is active; one object - action
verb is 'passive'.

If you write simply tomos, no one has any idea what you are getting at.

It must be tómos or tomós if you wish to make a point of some kind.

Yet another snare is imperfect and perfect participles (not perfective!).

Active and passive participles are really misnomers.

*H3 is never *m; it is not even *H3; it is simply *H, lengthening and
preserving a vowel's quality from the *Ablautvokal omniphage.

Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE -*C-presents


> > >I think that is actually to be read as: "It's the most economical
> > >explanation because there is no trace in IE of an inherited
> > >"passive" category", since you provide no other reason why that
> > >assumption is the most economical. Please object if you think
> > >otherwise.
> Miguel
> >
> > I didn't think spelling out the reason was necessary.
> > Torsten
> ===========
>
> The absence of passive is not so clear.
>
> In the Traité de grammaire comparée
> des langues classiques
> Meillet points at a number of
> words with tomos structure
> They are usually active in GReek
> when a verb is attested
> But a great number are passive
> with no verb in Greek.
>
> I've come to think
> this scheme tomo is originally
> passive and coherent
> with Semitic maktub formation
> tomo is *tom-H3
> and H3 here is m?
>
> Arnaud
>
> =================
>
>
>