--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:31:59 -0000, "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> >> Common origin requires formal homology (the historical identity of
> >> "substance", not function). If one language forms periphrastic
verb
> >> forms using forms of *kWer- or *h1es-, another using *dHeh1-, and
still
> >> another one using *kap-, this indicated convergent but independent
> >> development, not common origin.
You are wrong.
I think that you didn't identify correctly the phases of this process
The grammaticalization or even only a general morphological pattern
arrived later.
Initially
A first periphrastic verb is constructed based on dHeh1-, another one
based on bHuh- etc....
Finally we had a lot of periphrastic constructions (new verbal
compositions) already in PIE times : some in bHuh- some in dHeh1- some
in h1es-, all of them in the same time
But these are singularities (formations of new particular verbal
constructions) without any link to a grammatical category or even, at
least, to a common morphological function reflected by a general
periphrastic pattern
But because these periphrastic constructions were further
generalized, grammaticalized, adapted, extended to a whole class etc.
is more difficult to identify direct cognates for them. But is enoough
if we can identify verbal construction in -dheh1-, for example, in 3-4
PIE languages etc...
So I agree that there wasn't any verbal aspect etc...constructed
based on bHuh-/dHeh1/h1es in PIE times but we had many periphrastic
verbal construction in -dHeh1-, -bHuh- -h1es- already at that time...
I will say that we have already 'the substances' in PIE times and
also we have "their specific functionality" too BUT this specific
functionality was generalized (-> to grammatical markers/patterns) only
later (and of course differently) in different PIE Languages
Marius