From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 706
Date: 2002-10-18
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:26:47 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard RasmussenIt is conneted with the names Paul Kretschmer (Objektive Konjugation im
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >This has all been said before,
>
> May I ask by whom (except me)?
>That's right, and nobody would claim a subjunctive origin for the tud ti
> >but where is the evidence that the thematic
> >conjugation was once transitive as opposed to an intransitive athematic
> >counterpart?
>
> Nowhere.
>
> >Would such evidence not be common knowledge by now if it were
> >really true?
>
> Not necessarily, of course. Maybe we've been overlooking something. Or
> there
> are other Tocharians and Hittites (unlikely, but still one never knows).
>
> >I suspect the "evidence" is only in the structural analysis
> >of some non-IE languages. The irrelevance should be evident.
> >
> >I guess the problem has been like this: Some languages mark the object
> >role in the transitive verbal forms. IE has a funny thematic vowel of
> >unclear function, what was it originally? Hey, couldn't it have been an
> >object marker? No, it could not, for we know what it was - it was a
> marker
> >of syntactic subordination ("subjunctive").
>
> It certainly was. The question is whether all thematic verbs are old
> subjunctives. Can the tudáti-type be explained as a subjunctive? It
> doesn't
> look like one, accent-wise.