From: tgpedersen
Message: 63685
Date: 2009-03-28
>Sez Douglas.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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.
>
> But in this example, it is highly questionable that *-nskw- dropped
> /s/ at all.
> It is better to exhaust all other reasonable explanations ofI am all in favor exhausting reasonable explanations first, as a matter of fact I do it all the time.
> <inquam>, <inquit> first, before postulating a phonetic law
> supported by only one lexeme.
> > > The isolate is the rule, and everything else is the exception!!How did they fix that semantics? As far as I know just about all we got is the Iguvine tables which are dealing with an arcane subject we don't quite understand. Now if they had found the instruction manual of the Fiat 500, that would have been different. But enough of that, I think I'll stop enwhatting on that subject here.
> >
> > '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/-stemWhat!? (This is the imperative of the English verb 'to what'; what it means I am not quite sure but I know it does.)
> > > 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, butI still think this predates the formation of the subjunctive as a separate category, so you will have to bear your shame alone.
> > > > > <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.
>
> 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.
> > > If from *en-kwo-, <inquam> could also be an imperfect parallelSelf-consistent as in independent of whatever facts other people might come up with?
> > > to <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.
>
> Self-consistent, that is.