--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2009-06-13 15:12, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Why you don't address in place :
> > sonere, tonere and monere TOGETHER? :)
>
> Because they don't belong together: <mone:re> is a class II infinitive
> (with long /e:/).
>
> Piotr
I.
You are right here.
(But this doesn't means that all the -eye- verbs should stay in the same class in Latin. I agree also that is more probable that sonere and tonere to reflect originary PIE present formations )
II. On the other hand, this doesn't change the denominative argumentation for tona:re and sona:re
III.
Now on a general perspective, I need to highlight for everybody here what you are trying to do now:
---------------------------------
1. - One Latin Conjugation Class is composed by several subclass of verbs having several origins with a lot of aglutinations and exceptions and obscure reasons inside.
There is no Conjugation Class that can be clearly trace back to a Single PIE Verbal Formation, not to say that inner Latin formations are everywhere
So The Mapping is:
One Latin Conjugation Class --> SEVERAL ORIGINS (not all of them going back to PIE)
2. - Also verbs have moved from one conjugation class to another one due to different reasons (analogies, late formations, etc...)
As a conclusion:
- The change/the reshaping of the Original PIE Verbal Systems to Latin was so huge that Latin is not in the Position of Sanskrit.
Latin is not even in the position of Lithuanian (where you started to reject a PIE back formation for some verbs (even with no clear argumentation)
3. So the derivation of One Particular Latin Conjugation of One Particular Latin Verb, back to PIE Verbal System IS VERY UNSURE
Is one thing to trace a Root Back to PIE as:
Latin mon- < *monh2- < mnoh2- << mneh2- etc...
And is something else to say that tona:re, son:are was FOR SURE
PIE -h2-eye- formations when we have also Latin denominative formations in -a:re, together with the Latin nouns: sonus and tonus.
As in the case of your previous 'supposed metathesis' for re:ne:s the answer is :
- IT COULD BE, IT COULDN'T BE
Even without the denominative reason, the back-derivation of one subclass of Latin verbs in -a:re to the causative-iterative PIE class -eye- (h2-eye-), has a high degree of failure, once the verbs arrived in the -a:re class (as in others) for different (sometimes impossible to track back) reasons.
Marius