From: Rick McCallister
Message: 54236
Date: 2008-02-27
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] PIE meaning of the Germanic
> dental preterit
>
>
> > On 2008-02-27 15:02, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Your idea of reduplication as expressing
> "plurality" is a non-starter.
> > Neither the dual nor the subjunctive (of all
> numbers) are associated
> > with any sort of plurality. If you believe that
> reduplication in the
> > present stem has to do with repeated or incomplete
> actions, I agree. But
> > it has the same function in the singular as well
> ("I am repeating an
> > action, you are repeating an action, she is
> repeating an action").
>
> <snip>
>
> I hope these remarks will be regarded as an attempt
> to clarify or assist
> rather than a mere intrusion on Marius and Piotr.
>
> I have found that reduplication in many languages
> _can_ express simple
> plurality but oftener, it expresses totality, a
> related concept but
> different concept.
>
> Thus, in Sumerian, 'man-man' means not 'several men'
> but 'all (the) men'.
>
> With a verb, it comes close to a perfective (note: I
> did not say perfect)
> aspect.
>
> As we know, there were several types of
> reduplication in PIE as Miguel so
> nicely detailed.
>
> I feel relatively sure that, at least, one of them
> had 'totality' as its
> central theme.
>
> The problem, of course, is the nature of the verbal
> activity has a strong
> bearing onhow reduplication will be interpreted:
> e.g. punctual verbs
> reduplicated are iterative.
>
>
> Patrick
>
>