--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-02-27 01:00, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Being initially a PIE distinct word (dHeh1-) (and only next a
> > particle in a verbal construction -dHeh1-) => the usage of
> > reduplication (as a usual PIE verbal phenomenon) => can obviously
> > appear in relation with a Plurality
>
> Obviously?? Only if you ignore all real-world evidence. Can you
show me
> a single independent case where reduplication expresses plurality
in IE
> or Germanic? In the case of an aorist verb root *dHeh1-,
reduplication
> expresses the "present/imperfect" aspect.
1. I said Plurarity not Plural.
2. Do we have Plurarity in kW(e)-KW-l-o- or Intensity as the Main
Feature of this word formation?
I will bet that we have Plurarity : 'Many rotations'/'Many circles'
Of course Intensity is there -> but is a derivation of the main
features
3. Regarding the verbal aspect in general and is link with the notion
of Plurarity
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/pies04.html
"4.1.7. Aspects.
If we use the term aspect for semantic features, disregarding their
manner of expression in a given language, we may posit two basic
categories: Imperf. and Perf. (or -Perf. and +Perf.). Use of Perf.
indicates that the action is assumed to be completed. As a
consequence, Imperf. commonly indicates incomplete action; yet it is
more precise to state that, with an Imperf. expression, there is no
implication that the action is completed. As Wolfgang Dressler noted
in his capable monograph (1968:43), imperfective forms are
predominant in negative sentences.
The contrast in aspect is accompanied by other connotations, which
have been extensively discussed. Thus Perf. also carries the
connotation of punctual action, or even totality (ganzheitlich). And
Imperf. carries the connotation of linear, continuative, or durative
action and lack of totality (nicht ganzheitlich).
Moreover, Giacomo Devoto has pointed out the QUANTITATIVE connotation
of aspect (1958:396-398). It is this connotation which Dressler has
explored in his monograph on PLURALITY. For continuative aspect may
be associated with distributive or iterative meaning; it may also be
related to intensive aspect, which in turn may imply emphatic aspect.
"
This I quote only in general to link Plurarity with a Verbal Aspect
4. Now reagrding our topic: -dheh1- (reduplicated or not) was a
marker (initially a distinct word)
( => I saw that you didn't said anything about the Baltic reference
that I posted => that clearly show us (together with the Germanic
forms of course) the existence in PIE times of PIE verbal formation
in -dH(e)h1-)
so -dheh1- was expressed somehow Originary : using his Own Internal
Constructions, not that ones of the word that preceeded it in the
syntax -> -dheh1- wasn't used there originary as an ending of plural
or as of imperfect etc...it was a distinct word
So the reduplication appeared normally (-> internally in this word)
as a standalone form => see the standalone reduplications of the
verb -dHeh1- in different languages => and that standalone
reduplicatied form (but also the non-reduplicated ones) was used
Later as verbal markers for different verbal constructions
Only (very) Later => the Germanic 'preferred' to coagulate this
markers (based on dHeh1-) and to build a complete verbal aspect using
them: for this, Germanic 'choosede' to use a reduplicated form in the
3rd pl. and non-reduplicated forms for other persons
Now 'to imagine' that for the Pl. III Person, Germanic coagulated
a 'reduplicated marker' due to the 'Plurarity of the Agents that
performs that action(s)' is very probable: is a reasonable thinking
Do you have a better Idea to explain why 'a reduplicated form' (that
is there) was used? And why there and not there? Or why everywhere,
if everywhere?
> > > Again: have _you_ got a
> > > convincing explanation of <teta/ta:tun> etc.? One that doesn't
> > involve
> > > analogy? Really?
> >
> > Can you see that you remain inside your Model when assert this?
> > Once inside Your Model, I agree that there is no other workaround
for
> > you but this one. But nobody forced you to sustain that Model...
>
> What are you saying? <teta/ta:tun> are actual forms, as are the
Gothic
> endings <-da/-de:dun>. Can you explain the long vowel in the plural
or not?
I will come back in the evening on this.
> > Next the Runic Text in -dai wasn't published "by the proponents of
> > the "perfect middle solution"
> >
> > Are you really convince regarding what you real propose as an
> > Alternative? : you say more or less that is better to ignore this
> > inscription (-> "as an proponent of the "imperfect solution"? ,to
> > use your own expression)
> >
> > I can tell you: that anybody 'free to choose' will not ignore this
> > inscription:
> > I quoted for you: Antonsen that provided the text,
> > I quoted for you: Moltke that provided the Same Text,
> > next:
> > I quoted for you: Jassanof that takes it as a fact,
> > I quoted for you: Kortlandt that takes it as a fact,
> > even you can well see that each of them finally proposed a
> > Different Model, none of them ignore Facts
> > Are all of them, idiots?
> >
> > Why to arrive to propose to ignore this?
> > Sound for me like something personal...
>
> I neither deny (or have denied) the reality of the inscription nor
> ignore its existence. I merely point out that it's an isolated case
of
> <-idai> in all of Germanic, and so Jasanoff's suggestion that the
weak
> preterite contains a Germanic reflex of the perfect middle *dHe-
dHh1-ói
> is based on next to nothing. A SINGLE aberrant spelling is surely
not
> enough to rule out the identification of the endings of the dental
> preterite with the imperfect of 'to do', also visible in the
> <teta/ta:tun> preterite.
>
> Piotr
More or less you said nothing else but :
" 'I'm not ignore the inscription', ignoring it"
Marius