From: dgkilday57
Message: 63673
Date: 2009-03-28
>But in this example, it is highly questionable that *-nskw- dropped /s/ at all. It is better to exhaust all other reasonable explanations of <inquam>, <inquit> first, before postulating a phonetic law supported by only one lexeme.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > [on Latin <inquam> and <insequor>, etc.]
> > > > >
> > > > > Pokorny
> > > > > '2. sekw- "bemerken, sehen; zeigen",
> > > > > ursprüngl. "wittern, spüren" und (jünger) "sagen";
> > > > > identisch mit 1. sekw-.
> > > > > ...
> > > > > lat. i:nseque "sag an" (= gr. énnepe),
> > > > > auch i:nsece, c verschleppt aus Formen wie:
> > > > > insectio:ne:s "narrationes",
> > > > > insexit "dixerit";
> > > > > inquam, inquis, -it "sage ich, sagst du, sagt(e) er" (inquam
> > > > > Konjunktivform *en-skwa:m "möcht' ich sagen";
> > > > > inquit ursprgl. themat. Aorist *en-skwe-t wie eni-spei~n);'
> > > > >
> > > > > and Ernout-Meillet
> > > > > 'inquam, inquit: "dis-je, dit-il",
> > > > > employé en incise quand on rapporte ses propres paroles ou
> > > > > les paroles de quelqu'un; souvent après un mot sur lequel on
> > > > > veut attirer l'attention de l'auditeur ou du lecteur;
> > > > > notamment dans des anaphores. En dehors de inquam, inquit, on
> > > > > rencontre aussi mais plus rarement:
> > > > > inquis (class.), inquimus, inquitis, inquiunt;
> > > > > inquiat;
> > > > > inque, inquito: (Pl. Tér.);
> > > > > inqui:bat; inquie:s, -quiet;
> > > > > inquii:, inquisti:, cf. Kühner, Lat. Grann., 2e éd., I p.823.
> > > > > A basse époque, sur inquit, inquis s'est créée une 1re pers.
> > > > > inquio: (d'après aio:?) ou inquo:; d'où inquie:ns (Vulg.). La
> > > > > création même de ces formes, qui n'ont pas eu de vie
> > > > > véritable, montre que inquam avait cessé d'être employé.
> > > > > C'est surtout une forme de l'époque républicaine.
> > > > > Inquam a l'air d'un subjonctif dont le sens serait "veux-je
> > > > > dire". S'apparente sans doute à inseque, insece; v. ces mots.
> > > > > Pour le vocalisme, cf. hom. éspete (de *en-spete) à côté de
> > > > > ennépo:. Mais on ne voit pas comment *insquam aurait abouti à
> > > > > inquam.'
> > > > >
> > > > > say otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > Yes they do, but the devil is hiding in that "on ne voit pas".
> > > > A special phonetic law to explain a single word?
> > >
> > > That single word is a special position, so I'll accept a special
> > > phonetic law for it. Actually I think the law originally applied
> > > everywhere, but analogy undid it everywhere else.
> >
> > What can I say?! That is a BRILLIANT way of dealing with isolated
> > phenomena!!
>
> Am I getting a whiff of sarcasm here? This is the standard way of dealing wit isolated phenomena: incorporating them into a general theory.
> > The isolate is the rule, and everything else is the exception!!Shame on both of us for neglecting the Old Latin 3sg. pres. subj. <advenat>, which shows that the /a:/-subj. originally did not contain the /i/-extension of the pres. ind. system of some verbs. Thus *enkwa:m could indeed be an archaic subjunctive even if the verb stem was *enkwi-. And even if the latter was (as I suppose) formed within Italic (or Q-Italic) from a pronominal root, the old subj. form would have paralleled those of <venio:> etc. by analogy.
>
> 'Everythng else' underwent paradigm regularization. That doesn't make it an exception.
>
> > I have a better idea. The prefix *en- was added to the relative-
> > interrogative stems *kwi-/*kwo-. The original sense of *enkwi- was
> > 'to go into what' i.e. 'to expound on whatever has just been
> > mentioned'.
> > Umbrian <ar^putrati> 'by discretion' (abl. sg. of /u/-stem verbal
> > noun) can similarly be referred to a verb resulting from a prefixed
> > rel.-int. stem, P-Itc. *ad-pot(e)ra:- 'to go to one side or the
> > other' i.e. 'to mediate, officiate, decide'.
> >
> > > > And most of the forms belong to the fourth conjugation, but
> > > > <inquam> (not *inquiam, which should parallel <audiam> if it is
> > > > a Konjunktivform) is athematic.
> > >
> > > I think this predates the formation of the subjunctive as a
> > > separate category.
> > If from *en-kwo-, <inquam> could also be an imperfect parallel toSelf-consistent, that is.
> > <eram> from *es-a:m, i.e. *en-kwa:m 'I was expounding, I was
> > saying'. Since <inquam> has no known relatives outside Italic, I
> > would not be willing to run it back to pre-subjunctive times.
>
> If it is not *en-skW-am it doesn't, that is, so your argument is circular.