Re: PIE Reduplication

Thank you, Miguel, for that nice summary of PIE reduplication - and your
insightful comments on the subject.

What I see there strengthens my inclination to believe that the only reason
we see *i
as a reduplication vowel is that the stress-accent (*í) or possibly
subsequently shortened length (*i: -> *i) has preserved it from become the
*A(blautvokal).


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE Reduplication


> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:41:24 -0600, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >One fact that I think should be held in mind when discussing the quality
> >of
> >the vowel of the reduplication syllable in PIE is that there were two
> >patterns:
> >
> >1) perfect reduplication: *C'V-CVC
> >
> >2) intensive reduplication: *CV-C'V
> >
> >These two patterns may not have always been properly compartmentalized.
>
> LIV recognizes the following reduplicating formations:
>
> (1g) e-redupliziertes athematisches Präsens
> (*dhé-dhoh1-/*dhé-dhh1- : C1é-R(o)/R(z)-)
> (1h) i-redupliziertes athematisches Präsens
> (*sti-stéh2-/*sti-sth2-' : C1i-R(é)/R(z)-)
> (1i) i-redupliziertes thematisches Präsens (*si-sd-é/ó- :
> C1i-R(z)-é-)
> (2c) redupliziert-thematischer Aorist (*wé-wkW-e/o- :
> C1é-R(z)-e-)
> (3a) redupliziertes Perfekt (*bhe-bhóidh-/*bhe-bhidh-' :
> C1e-R(ó)/R(z)-)
> (5b) redupliziertes Desiderativ (*wi-wn.-sé/ó- :
> C1i-R(z)-sé-)
> (6a) redupliziertes Intensivum (*kWér-kWor-/*kWér-kWr-
> (C1éC2-R(o)/R(z)-)
>
> Category (1g) is, I believe, a phantom. Most of these verbs
> are simply o-grade verbs, without a trace of reduplication,
> which Jasanoff connects with the Hittite hi-conjugation
> (o/e-Abalut). A case in point is the first such verb listed
> in LIV, *bhedhh2-, where *bhé-bhodhh2-/*bhé-bhdhh2- is given
> a the pre-form of unreduplicated Hitt. paddai, Latin fodio:
> and Slavic bodoN, bosti. In Lithuanian bedù, bèsti, the
> e-grade of the dual/plural was generalized, so that gets
> assigned to plain thematic *bhédh2-e-.
>
> The splitting up of reduplicating presents in LIV into three
> categories also covers up some interesting variations in the
> quality of the reduplicated vowel and/or the stress in the
> present forms, as pointed out by Rasmussen ("Indo-European
> -i- ~ -e-/-o-"). We have 3sg. juhó:ti vs. 3pl. júhvati
> (*g^hú-g^hw-n.ti < *g^hé-g^hw-n.ti) and 3sg. sís.akti vs.
> 3pl. sás'cati (*si-sékW-ti vs. *sé-skW-n.ti).
>
> Category (1i) certainly exists, but why?
>
> Category (2c) in LIV is a simplification. In Vedic, where
> this category is is perhaps best attested, the redupliaction
> vowel is /i:/ [c.q. /u:/] (except before CC- in the root
> when the vowel is shortened). Not all verbs show zero grade,
> and not all forms are thematic.
>
> The perfect (category 3a) incidentally also shows forms with
> a long reduplication vowel /a:/ in Vedic. This happens in
> more than 30 Vedic verbs (e.g. ca:-kan-, ca:-kl.p-, tu:-tu-,
> etc.), only a few of which can be traced to verbs starting
> with HC- (I can find 9 examples in LIV: *Hmelk^-, *HweRdh-,
> *h1ger-, *h1lenghW-, *h2leks-, *h2merg^-, *h2weks-, *h2werg-
> and *h2wers-).
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...
>
>