Re: *san,W- , "judged"? "rite"?, "journey"?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > > > It's my contention that PIE originally had only an
> > > > impersonal, by nature consisting of 3sg and 3pl, and that
> > > > this was supplemented later (except in Sabellic) by
> > > > constructing 1st and 2nd forms, to form a full medio-passive
> > > > paradigm.
> > >
> > > My view is that Old PIE had an impersonal pronominal marker *r.
> > > which combined with other pronominal markers to form a true
> > > passive voice. This was likely before the origin of PIE
> > > ablaut, so I write the impersonal as *bhr.-r. 'one bears', the
> > > 3sg. pass. as *bhr.-t-r. 'one bears him/her' = 'he/she is
> > > borne', the 3pl. pass. as *bhr.-n.t-r. 'one bears them' = 'they
> > > are borne'. A striking morphological parallel is found in
> > > Middle Egyptian, where the impersonal element <.tw> (regarded
> > > as an old indefinite pronoun 'one, someone') is followed by the
> > > ordinary suffix-pronouns to create a passive verbal paradigm.
> > > This is, of course, independent of what I have hypothesised for
> > > Old PIE. The Egyptian marking sequence is VSO (as is the
> > > neutral order in ordinary sentences) while the PIE sequence is
> > > VOS, since the impersonal *r. is the subject of the passive
> > > formation.
>
> I made several errors in that posting. First, the presumed
> impersonal marker is simply */r/, not syllabic */r./. Italic *-tor
> and *-ntor were originally secondary suffixes (in Umbrian, they
> contrast with primary -ter and -nter) and the /o/ comes from the
> secondary marker, not a vocalized sonant.
>
> > A VOS contruction in a SOV language? Hm.
>
> Old PIE, not PIE just before the diaspora.

PIE was SOV. Are you saying 'Old PIE' was VOS? That's a highly unusual type of sequence.

> > > In my view Italic inherited both the /r./-impersonal and the
> > > passive based on it, but the passive fell together with the
> > > middle, and only the 3sg. and 3pl. true passive forms
> > > survived. Latin has a mixed bag of passive, middle, and double-
> > > marked forms in its paradigm. Both Oscan and Umbrian have the
> > > old impersonal, but Latin replaced it with the 3sg. pass. as
> > > noted, "in consilium itur" and the like. I am not sure whether
> > > the archaic <estur> represents a true impersonal (i.e.
> > > *h1es(t)r. with epenthetic /t/), but it seems more likely that
> > > it originated in double-marked perfect passives (for such
> > > double-marking cf. "res coepta est geri").
>
> Another error on my part. All the old examples of <estur> come
> from 'eat' not 'be' and have nothing to do with double-marked
> passives. Since the root was *h1ed-, this <estur> cannot be a true
> impersonal.

Man ist, was man isst ;-)

> > I don't think a language would need an impersonal and a passive
> > both.
>
> Rick and Brian have settled that, I think. Anyhow, in order to
> justify my theory, I must first explain all the P-Italic simple
> /r/-forms as active impersonals, not passive impersonals
> syntactically equivalent to ordinary passives (the usual view found
> in Buck, Poultney, etc.).

What's an 'active impersonal'?

> Then I need to show that certain other /r/-forms in other branches
> of IE can be explained in a similar way, and finally to argue that
> taking the simple */r/ as impersonal in origin, not a 3pl. pass.
> marker which sometimes developed an impersonal sense (thus Buck)
> gives simpler results. That will take a week or two.
>

OK.

> > Anyway, here's my version.
> > PIE verb stems were originally also nominal (there might have
> > been nominalizing now lost suffix). To nominal elements, thus
> > also to verb stems, could be added the three deictic particles
> > PPIE 'nu' "at me", 'sa' "at thee" and 'ta' "at him/her/it". The
> > latter, in PIE -tó-, gave the impersonal 3sg preterite. PIE forms
> > presents from that by adding either -i or -r, I suspect both are
> > the postposition *en, so that present forms are originally
> > participial, cf French 'en parlant ...', which by some creolizing
> > stage became finite, cf. those sub-standard Englishes which leave
> > out the copula in the progressive tenses, making -ing a finite
> > suffix.
>
> I am not willing to postulate such violent phonology, both -i
> (primary 'here and now') and -r (impersonal) from *-en, even in Old
> PIE.

'Violent'?. Hm. I like that.
Remember that we have to have a rule *-Vn# -> *-Vr# anyway, because of the heteroclitic neuters. The -i suffix under my proposal would not have to have the suspicious property of being both a nominal and a verbal suffix, but be exclusively nominal, in fact be only the locative ending -i, its seeming occurrence as a verbal suffix being actually as the locative ending of a (personalized) verbal noun.
I think -i developed after C (but was mechanically transferred to the personalized ppp's in *-n,Wo, *-so, *to, as a locative marker), and -r developed after V.


Torsten