Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Vrddhi in sigmatic aorist

Expand Messages
  • P&G
    ... I don t think you re alone. I find Szemerenyi s explanation for the long vowel very odd. If the vowel length were simply from the insertion of -s- after
    Message 1 of 15 , Oct 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > I still haven't got those damn aorist figured out yet...

      I don't think you're alone. I find Szemerenyi's explanation for the long
      vowel very odd. If the vowel length were simply from the insertion of -s-
      after a resonant, we would expect Sanskrit stems in -i to produce a
      long -i:s in the aorist, but they don't, they give us -ais- / -es. Likewise
      stems in -u give -aus- /-os. (These of course are long and short a + i,
      long and short a + u in Skt) Examples:
      stem ni: = lead
      aorist 4: anaisi:t, nesati

      stem pru: = flow
      aorist 4 prostha:s

      stem stu = praise
      aorist 4: astausi:t, stosat, etc.

      This looks to me much more like the insertion of an -e- than compensatory
      lengthening!

      Peter
    • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
      On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:35:01 -0000, P&G ... I don t follow. If a from like *bher-s-s [CeR-s-s] gives *bhe:rs(s) [Skt. bha:r], then
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:35:01 -0000, "P&G" <petegray@...>
        wrote:

        >> I still haven't got those damn aorist figured out yet...
        >
        >I don't think you're alone. I find Szemerenyi's explanation for the long
        >vowel very odd. If the vowel length were simply from the insertion of -s-
        >after a resonant, we would expect Sanskrit stems in -i to produce a
        >long -i:s in the aorist,

        I don't follow. If a from like *bher-s-s [CeR-s-s] gives *bhe:rs(s)
        [Skt. bha:r], then a form like *ney-s-s [ReR-s-s] should give
        *ne:ys(s) [Skt. nais].

        >but they don't, they give us -ais- / -es. Likewise
        >stems in -u give -aus- /-os. (These of course are long and short a + i,
        >long and short a + u in Skt) Examples:
        > stem ni: = lead
        > aorist 4: anaisi:t, nesati

        The forms in -i:s, -i:t are secondary (after roots ending in *-H).
        The original forms were (ind.aor.act.) h1e-ney-s-t > h1e-ne:y-st,
        (subj.aor.act.) *ney-s-e-t(i), with normal grade.

        > stem pru: = flow
        > aorist 4 prostha:s
        >
        > stem stu = praise
        > aorist 4: astausi:t, stosat, etc.

        The stem stu- (and many others ending in -u) are "Narten-presents",
        which means that they have vr.ddhi instead of gun.a, and gun.a instead
        of zero grade even outside of the sigmatic aorist.
      • P&G
        ... Woops! I was thinking of the bare stem (eg ni, stu) + s. But of course your parallel is right, and my question vanishes. There is, however, another
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          >>we would expect Sanskrit stems in -i to produce a
          > >long -i:s in the aorist,
          >
          > I don't follow. If a from like *bher-s-s [CeR-s-s] gives *bhe:rs(s)
          > [Skt. bha:r], then a form like *ney-s-s [ReR-s-s] should give
          > *ne:ys(s) [Skt. nais].

          Woops! I was thinking of the bare stem (eg ni, stu) + s. But of course
          your parallel is right, and my question vanishes. There is, however,
          another question. If the vrddhi is due to loss of s after a resonant, why
          do we also find it after stop consonants?
          examples: stem rudh, aor 4 arautsam, arutsi (= 'obstruct')
          greek re:xa from *reg (short e) present re:gnumi
          ('break')

          I'm aware of the argument that this lengthening also affect nominatives such
          as Latin pe:s < *ped-s, but here the stop consonant is lost, not the -s.
          The other process would be bizzarre, surely? *peds > *pedd > *pe:d >
          pe:ds (s restored analogically) > *pe:s.

          Peter


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <mcv@...>
          To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:47 PM
          Subject: Re: [tied] Vrddhi in sigmatic aorist


          > On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:35:01 -0000, "P&G" <petegray@...>
          > wrote:
          >
          > >> I still haven't got those damn aorist figured out yet...
          > >
          > >I don't think you're alone. I find Szemerenyi's explanation for the long
          > >vowel very odd. If the vowel length were simply from the insertion
          of -s-
          > >after a resonant, we would expect Sanskrit stems in -i to produce a
          > >long -i:s in the aorist,
          >
          > I don't follow. If a from like *bher-s-s [CeR-s-s] gives *bhe:rs(s)
          > [Skt. bha:r], then a form like *ney-s-s [ReR-s-s] should give
          > *ne:ys(s) [Skt. nais].
          >
          > >but they don't, they give us -ais- / -es. Likewise
          > >stems in -u give -aus- /-os. (These of course are long and short a + i,
          > >long and short a + u in Skt) Examples:
          > > stem ni: = lead
          > > aorist 4: anaisi:t, nesati
          >
          > The forms in -i:s, -i:t are secondary (after roots ending in *-H).
          > The original forms were (ind.aor.act.) h1e-ney-s-t > h1e-ne:y-st,
          > (subj.aor.act.) *ney-s-e-t(i), with normal grade.
          >
          > > stem pru: = flow
          > > aorist 4 prostha:s
          > >
          > > stem stu = praise
          > > aorist 4: astausi:t, stosat, etc.
          >
          > The stem stu- (and many others ending in -u) are "Narten-presents",
          > which means that they have vr.ddhi instead of gun.a, and gun.a instead
          > of zero grade even outside of the sigmatic aorist.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
          On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:53:01 -0000, P&G ... The lengthening is simply not due to los of /s/ after a resonant or a stop, it is due to
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:53:01 -0000, "P&G" <petegray@...>
            wrote:

            >There is, however, another question.
            >If the vrddhi is due to loss of s after a resonant, why
            >do we also find it after stop consonants?
            > examples: stem rudh, aor 4 arautsam, arutsi (= 'obstruct')
            > greek re:xa from *reg (short e) present re:gnumi ('break')
            >
            >I'm aware of the argument that this lengthening also affect nominatives such
            >as Latin pe:s < *ped-s, but here the stop consonant is lost, not the -s.
            >The other process would be bizzarre, surely? *peds > *pedd > *pe:d >
            >pe:ds (s restored analogically) > *pe:s.

            The lengthening is simply not due to los of /s/ after a resonant or a
            stop, it is due to the /s/ itself, after any consonant, and
            independently of whether it is lost itself subsequently. Think of the
            other stem *reg- "king", nom.sg. *re:g-s > Lat. re:x (assuming the
            lengthened stem has been carried over into the oblique: re:gis).
            Also: Lat. <vo:x> < *wo:kw-s < *wokw-s.

            In general, what we find is that the lengthening affects *all* animate
            nominatives [originally in *-s], with further developments as follows:

            Loss of -s (with *m, *n, *l, *r):
            -oms > -o:ms > -o:m (e.g. Grk. khthó:n)
            -ons > -o:ns > -o:n (e.g. Grk. dáimo:n)
            -éns > -é:ns > -é:n (e.g. Grk. poimé:n)
            -ols > -o:ls > -o:l (with -s: Latv. âbuõls [archaism or innovation?])
            -ors > -o:rs > -o:r (e.g. Grk. éupato:r)
            -érs > -é:rs > -é:r (e.g. Grk. paté:r)

            -s Retained (with *y, *w, *k, *g, *kW, *gW, *p, [*b]):
            -ois > -o:is (e.g. Hitt. zahha:is; Grk. Sappho: < *-o:is)
            -ous > -o:us (e.g. Hitt. harna:us, Grk. patro:s)
            -éus > -é:us (e.g. Grk. basileús, Zeús)
            -egs > -e:ks (e.g. Lat. re:x)
            -okWs > -o:kWs (e.g. Lat. vo:x)
            -okWts > -o:kWts > -okWts > -okWs (e.g. Lat. nox [-V:CCC > -VCCC])
            -ops > -o:ps (e.g. Lat. o:ps/ops)

            Loss of -s / -s Retained? (with *s):
            -oss > -o:s (e.g. Grk. e:o:s)
            -éss > -é:s (e.g. Grk. eumené:s)

            Loss of -C- (with *(n)t, *d):
            -onts > -o:nts > -o:ns (with loss of -s: Grk. hekó:n)
            -énts > -e:nts > -e:ns (e.g. Lat. de:ns)
            -ots > -o:ts > -o:s (e.g. Lat nepo:s)
            -eds > -e:ds > -e:s (e.g. Lat pe:s)
            -ods > -o:ds > -o:s (e.g. Grk. po:s, pous)

            The rule applies not just to *-s, but probably to any final fricative
            before a consonant (cluster) [in practice, that means *-s and *-h2].
          • P&G
            Thanks for the full posting, Miguel - that was helpful, and much more believable than what I ve read elsewhere. ... the ... You could add lego (short e) ~
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 3, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks for the full posting, Miguel - that was helpful, and much more
              believable than what I've read elsewhere.

              >Think of the other stem *reg- "king", nom.sg. *re:g-s > Lat. re:x (assuming
              the
              >lengthened stem has been carried over into the oblique: re:gis).
              >Also: Lat. <vo:x> < *wo:kw-s < *wokw-s.

              You could add lego (short e) ~ le:x, but what about du:co < deuco ~ dux with
              a short vowel throughout the noun paradigm? Do we just say "exception"?
              And if we do, how many such exceptions are there?

              Peter

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <mcv@...>
              To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 1:47 PM
              Subject: Re: [tied] Vrddhi in sigmatic aorist


              On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:53:01 -0000, "P&G" <petegray@...>
              wrote:

              >There is, however, another question.
              >If the vrddhi is due to loss of s after a resonant, why
              >do we also find it after stop consonants?
              > examples: stem rudh, aor 4 arautsam, arutsi (= 'obstruct')
              > greek re:xa from *reg (short e) present re:gnumi ('break')
              >
              >I'm aware of the argument that this lengthening also affect nominatives
              such
              >as Latin pe:s < *ped-s, but here the stop consonant is lost, not the -s.
              >The other process would be bizzarre, surely? *peds > *pedd > *pe:d >
              >pe:ds (s restored analogically) > *pe:s.

              The lengthening is simply not due to los of /s/ after a resonant or a
              stop, it is due to the /s/ itself, after any consonant, and
              independently of whether it is lost itself subsequently. Think of the
              other stem *reg- "king", nom.sg. *re:g-s > Lat. re:x (assuming the
              lengthened stem has been carried over into the oblique: re:gis).
              Also: Lat. <vo:x> < *wo:kw-s < *wokw-s.

              In general, what we find is that the lengthening affects *all* animate
              nominatives [originally in *-s], with further developments as follows:

              Loss of -s (with *m, *n, *l, *r):
              -oms > -o:ms > -o:m (e.g. Grk. khthó:n)
              -ons > -o:ns > -o:n (e.g. Grk. dáimo:n)
              -éns > -é:ns > -é:n (e.g. Grk. poimé:n)
              -ols > -o:ls > -o:l (with -s: Latv. âbuõls [archaism or innovation?])
              -ors > -o:rs > -o:r (e.g. Grk. éupato:r)
              -érs > -é:rs > -é:r (e.g. Grk. paté:r)

              -s Retained (with *y, *w, *k, *g, *kW, *gW, *p, [*b]):
              -ois > -o:is (e.g. Hitt. zahha:is; Grk. Sappho: < *-o:is)
              -ous > -o:us (e.g. Hitt. harna:us, Grk. patro:s)
              -éus > -é:us (e.g. Grk. basileús, Zeús)
              -egs > -e:ks (e.g. Lat. re:x)
              -okWs > -o:kWs (e.g. Lat. vo:x)
              -okWts > -o:kWts > -okWts > -okWs (e.g. Lat. nox [-V:CCC > -VCCC])
              -ops > -o:ps (e.g. Lat. o:ps/ops)

              Loss of -s / -s Retained? (with *s):
              -oss > -o:s (e.g. Grk. e:o:s)
              -éss > -é:s (e.g. Grk. eumené:s)

              Loss of -C- (with *(n)t, *d):
              -onts > -o:nts > -o:ns (with loss of -s: Grk. hekó:n)
              -énts > -e:nts > -e:ns (e.g. Lat. de:ns)
              -ots > -o:ts > -o:s (e.g. Lat nepo:s)
              -eds > -e:ds > -e:s (e.g. Lat pe:s)
              -ods > -o:ds > -o:s (e.g. Grk. po:s, pous)

              The rule applies not just to *-s, but probably to any final fricative
              before a consonant (cluster) [in practice, that means *-s and *-h2].





              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
              On Sun, 4 Nov 2001 07:45:25 -0000, P&G ... I d say exception . Without the benefit of a Latin et. dict., the noun must derive
              Message 6 of 15 , Nov 4, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sun, 4 Nov 2001 07:45:25 -0000, "P&G" <petegray@...>
                wrote:

                >You could add lego (short e) ~ le:x, but what about du:co < deuco ~ dux with
                >a short vowel throughout the noun paradigm? Do we just say "exception"?
                >And if we do, how many such exceptions are there?

                I'd say "exception". Without the benefit of a Latin et. dict., the
                noun must derive from *douk-s (or *deuk-s), with obl. *duk-ós. That
                should have given *du:x, ducis, but here it was the oblique stem that
                "won" (the opposite of what happened with re:x, re:gis etc.). The
                Ausgleich presumably happened at a stage in Latin where the paradigm
                was still an awkward *douks, *dukes.

                An afterthought on *-s (and *-h2) in the verb: there are a few other
                forms that should have given a lengthened vowel in the stem. The
                athematic imperfect (e.g. *[h1e-]es-s "you were") and root aorist
                (*[h1e-]kWel-s), the thematic opt. (*-oih1-s), the 1sg. perfect
                (*woid-h2). Maybe some of these lengthened grades have left traces,
                but it was only in the athematic s-aorist that they formed a solid
                block of 2 + 3 sg., capable of dragging along the 1sg. and eventually
                the whole paradigm.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.