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

[tied] More Jasanoff

Expand Messages
  • Miguel Carrasquer
    On p. 82 and further, there s a discussion of the Ablaut of the PIE root aorist. Jasanoff claims that the indicative (as well as the 2pl. imper.) was
    Message 1 of 10 , May 3, 2004
      On p. 82 and further, there's a discussion of the Ablaut of
      the PIE root aorist. Jasanoff claims that the indicative (as
      well as the 2pl. imper.) was characterized by e-grade
      everywhere, except in the 3pl.. "This pattern is normal in
      Indo-Iranian (cf. Ved. 1pl. (á)karma, (á)ganma, (á)da:ma,
      etc., 2 pl. (á)karta, (á)ganta, (á)da:ta, but 3pl. (á)kran,
      (á)gman. (á)duh.) [...]".

      The description in Macdonell is slightly different: the root
      aorist has strong forms in the ind. sg., and weak forms
      elsewhere (same as the present, or the imperfect), _except_
      that roots ending in a "vowel" (-y, -w, -r/-l, -H) [and this
      of course also applies to roots ending in -n, -m and -C]
      maintain the strong forms, except in the 3pl.

      This would mean that roots ending in -RC should show weak
      forms in the 1/2pl. and 1/2/3 du. root aorist, and indeed
      some examples can be given (|dr.s'|- > ádr.s'ma besides
      ádars'ma, |muc| -> ámuktam, but |chid| -> chedma).

      A not unimportant factor is obviously the syllabic shape of
      the endings: the 1/2pl. and du. endings are of the shape
      -CV.. (-ma, -ta, -va, -tam, -ta:m), but the 3pl. is -VC r ta
      least *-VC (-an/-ur < *-r.s or *-é:rs).

      Even so, that does not fully explain why the imperfect has
      weak 1/2 plural and 1/2/3 dual forms (except in the case of
      -C(C) verbs), while the root aorist has so many full grade
      forms there.

      Jasanoff is rather vague in general about the connection
      between Ablaut, stress, vowel length and syllable structure.

      As I basically accept (with some modifications) Rasmussen's
      "Morphophonemik" explanation, if I were to accept e-grade in
      the root-aorist 1/2 pl., that would inevitably have
      consequences for the original structure of the forms. If we
      take the verb *dheh1- as an example, I would have expected
      the root aorist (similarly to the imperfect) to have
      developed as follows:

      *dhéh1-m > *dhé:m > ádha:m
      *dhéh1-s > *dhé:s > ádha:s
      *dhéh1-t > *dhé:t > ádha:t

      *dh(e)h1-mé > *dh&mé > *ádhima (actually: ádha:ma)
      *dh(e)h1-té > *dh&té > *ádhita (actually: ádha:ta)
      *dh(e)h1-érs > *dhé:r > ádhur,

      with {analogical|syllabic structure} explanation for 1/2pl.

      On the other hand, if ádha:ma and ádha:ta are original, then
      there is no other solution than to either reconstruct a long
      vowel in the root:

      *dha:h1-má > *dhéh1-me > ádha:ma
      *dha:h1-tá > *dhéh1-té > ádha:ta
      *dha:h1-án > *dhéh1r(s) > ádhur,

      which begs the question of why we seemingly have no long root
      vowel in the singular, or to conclude that the _endings_ of
      the 1/2pl. (perhaps also the dual, if that's not analogical)
      were originally _asyllabic_:

      *dhéh1-m > *dhé:m(e) > ádha:ma
      *dhéh1-t > *dhé:t(e) > ádha:ta.

      But this would divorce the aorist endings from the imperfect
      endings.

      For the h2e-conjugation aorists, Jasanoff claims o/e-Ablaut
      (I've read that part only superficially for now, but that's
      my impression), so that would take care of lengthening (i.e.
      o-grade) in the singular for those verbs (e-grade in the
      plural spreading analogically to the mi-conjugation aorists
      [but why not the the 3pl.?]).

      The other possibility, asyllabic endings, can also work.
      There are good reasons to think that the endings of the
      1/2pl. perfect/hi-conjugation (and *not* that of the 3pl.)
      originally *were* asyllabic: reduction of the original
      endings in the absolute Auslaut is the only way I can explain
      the discrepancy between perfect *-me (or *-meH?), *-te (or
      *-He?), and the historically related middle endings *-modhH-
      (or *-mwo?) and *-dhwo-[*]. So if part of what we know as
      root aorists were originally conjugated (and in Anatolian
      still were) with "h2e"-endings (e.g. 1pl. *dhéh1-mH, 2pl.
      *dhéh1-dH), that would explain the aberrant Ablaut of the
      1/2pl. in the root aorist (having spread analogically to the
      mi-conjugation root aorists, but not the mi-conjugation
      imperfect).

      [*] All the endings of the middle/perfect (stative) complex
      show signs of having stood in the Auslaut originally.

      Starting from a Proto-Nostratic prototype:
      *-(a)-k(V) *-at-m(V)-k(u)
      *-t(a)k(V) *-at-t(V)-k(u)
      *-(a) *-an,

      we get:

      *-k *-tmkW
      *-tk *-ttkW
      *-0 *-án,

      giving:

      *-h2 *-(d)mGW (?)
      *-th2 *-dGW (?)
      *-0 *-ér

      The middle endings diversified at this point:

      1. *-h2-a-r(i), *-h2-a(i), *-h2-a-dh(i)
      2. *-th2-a-m, *-th2-a(i), *-th2-a-dh(i)
      3. *-o-m, *-o-r(i), *-o(i), *-o-dh(i)
      *-t-o-m, *-t-o-r(i), *-t-o(i), *-t-o-dh(i)
      1. ?
      2. *-dhw-o-m, *-dhw-o(i), *-dhw-o-dh(i)
      3. *-ro-m, *-ro-n (!), *-ro(i), *-ro-dh(i)
      *-nt-o-m, *-nt-o-r(i), *-nt-o(i), *-nt-o-dh(i)

      [
      for 1pl., either:
      1. *-mw-o-r(i), *-mw-o(i), *-mw-o-dh(i)
      And *-mwodhi taken as the basis for:
      *-mwodhar(i), *-mwodho(i)

      or directly (metathesis *-dmGw > *-m(w)dG ?):
      1. *-mwodhh2-r(i), *-mwodhh2-a(i)
      ]

      In the perfect/hi-conjugation, 1/2pl. were further reduced in
      the Auslaut:

      *-m(H)
      *-t(H) ~ *-H

      Then, -e was added (except to the 3pl.), giving the attested
      endings:

      *-h2-e
      *-th2-e
      *-e

      *-m-é (?)
      *-t-é (?)
      *-é:r, *-r.s

      The exact Ablaut depends on the presence and accentuation of
      the reduplication. So, for the "classical perfect", we have:

      *(mi-)má:n-h2 > *(me)món-h2e
      *(mi-)má:n-th2 > *(me)món-th2e
      *(mi-)má:n- > *(me)món-e
      *mí:-man-mH > *mé:-m(e)n-m(H)e > *me-mn.-mé
      *mí:-man-dH > *mé:-m(e)n-t(H)e > *me-mn.-té
      *mí:-man-an > *mé:-m(e)n-ers > *mé:-mn-r.s / *me-mn-é:r


      =======================
      Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
      mcv@...
    • elmeras2000
      ... I do not want to go into a detailed discussion of Jasanoff s book since I have a plan to review it in a journal (I have had plans that never came true,
      Message 2 of 10 , May 4, 2004
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@w...> wrote:

        > Even so, that does not fully explain why the imperfect has
        > weak 1/2 plural and 1/2/3 dual forms (except in the case of
        > -C(C) verbs), while the root aorist has so many full grade
        > forms there.

        I do not want to go into a detailed discussion of Jasanoff's book
        since I have a plan to review it in a journal (I have had plans that
        never came true, we'll see about this one). But the facts are
        everybody's. I cannot really believe there was a different treatment
        in verbs depending on whether the stem concerned was a present stem
        or an aorist stem at the time the ablaut operated as a purely
        phonetic process. I therefore see no problem with zero-grade forms
        in root aorists dual and plural active or in the middle voice. I
        find it slightly problematic that we do not always get the zero-
        grade we would like to see, but, come one, we have seen levellings
        before. And levellings will of course be sensitive to functional
        considerations, so in this context it does not matter that
        levellings do not take exactly the same course in aorists as they do
        in presents. If Greek agrees with Sanskrit, it may just indicate
        that the first steps of levelling of the ablaut of the root aorist
        occurred before the dissolution of the protolanguage. I have no
        problem accepting it even for a time preceding the split-off of
        Anatolian, so if there is too much <te-> in 'say' in Hittite, I do
        no object to an idea that it reflects a common levelling before the
        languages split. Still, we would like to see some more to know that
        other possibilities, including simple chance, are excluded.

        Jens
      • Miguel Carrasquer
        On Tue, 04 May 2004 12:37:41 +0000, elmeras2000 ... That s a pity, because that was precisely what I wanted to go into eventually (starting with some of the
        Message 3 of 10 , May 4, 2004
          On Tue, 04 May 2004 12:37:41 +0000, elmeras2000
          <jer@...> wrote:

          >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@w...> wrote:
          >
          >> Even so, that does not fully explain why the imperfect has
          >> weak 1/2 plural and 1/2/3 dual forms (except in the case of
          >> -C(C) verbs), while the root aorist has so many full grade
          >> forms there.
          >
          >I do not want to go into a detailed discussion of Jasanoff's book

          That's a pity, because that was precisely what I wanted to
          go into eventually (starting with some of the minor details
          first).

          >since I have a plan to review it in a journal (I have had plans that
          >never came true, we'll see about this one). But the facts are
          >everybody's. I cannot really believe there was a different treatment
          >in verbs depending on whether the stem concerned was a present stem
          >or an aorist stem at the time the ablaut operated as a purely
          >phonetic process. I therefore see no problem with zero-grade forms
          >in root aorists dual and plural active or in the middle voice.

          The middle voice seems to have zero-grade consistently, like
          the 3pl. active.

          >I find it slightly problematic that we do not always get the zero-
          >grade we would like to see, but, come one, we have seen levellings
          >before. And levellings will of course be sensitive to functional
          >considerations, so in this context it does not matter that
          >levellings do not take exactly the same course in aorists as they do
          >in presents. If Greek agrees with Sanskrit, it may just indicate
          >that the first steps of levelling of the ablaut of the root aorist
          >occurred before the dissolution of the protolanguage.

          A difference between the 3pl. (of reduplicated forms) and
          the 3sg. (also 1/2 pl.?) was discovered by yourself. Any
          relevance to this question?

          >I have no
          >problem accepting it even for a time preceding the split-off of
          >Anatolian, so if there is too much <te-> in 'say' in Hittite,

          That's the opposite phenomenon: e-grade in the 3pl. (and
          2pl., rarely 1pl.) mi-conjugation preterite where one would
          expect zero-grade (appwen/epten/eppir, esuwen/esten/esir).

          >I do
          >no object to an idea that it reflects a common levelling before the
          >languages split. Still, we would like to see some more to know that
          >other possibilities, including simple chance, are excluded.


          =======================
          Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
          mcv@...
        • elmeras2000
          ... I don t think it was any great discovery. Pairs such as dádha:ti/dádhati, juhóti/júhvati, várvarti/várvr.tati were fully recorded already. Perhaps
          Message 4 of 10 , May 4, 2004
            --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@w...> wrote:

            > A difference between the 3pl. (of reduplicated forms) and
            > the 3sg. (also 1/2 pl.?) was discovered by yourself. Any
            > relevance to this question?

            I don't think it was any great discovery. Pairs such as
            dádha:ti/dádhati, juhóti/júhvati, várvarti/várvr.tati were fully
            recorded already. Perhaps there was no theory integrating them, but
            even when that is added, I cannot be specific about all details.
            Thus I wouldn't know what the 1st and 2nd plural would have been. I
            can make them up in accordance with the theory, which makes them
            come out as *dádhH1-me, *dédhH1te, so if the actual forms have final
            accent they must be assumed to have normalized the interplay of the
            accent. I cannot even exclude that such an analogy has operated
            before the disintegration of PIE.

            But yes, the behaviour of reduplicated verbs do play a major role in
            what controversy remains between Jasanoff and myself.

            >
            > >I have no
            > >problem accepting it even for a time preceding the split-off of
            > >Anatolian, so if there is too much <te-> in 'say' in Hittite,
            >
            > That's the opposite phenomenon: e-grade in the 3pl. (and
            > 2pl., rarely 1pl.) mi-conjugation preterite where one would
            > expect zero-grade (appwen/epten/eppir, esuwen/esten/esir).

            Hitt. <te-> has no zero-grade alternants if <tar-> is a different
            root; therefore there is no interesting distribution of vowel grades
            in this particular Hittite verb.

            Jens
          • Miguel Carrasquer
            On Tue, 04 May 2004 15:24:18 +0000, elmeras2000 ... That can t be the only thing. I m afraid I m mainly with Jasanoff on the reduplication (or lack of). But
            Message 5 of 10 , May 4, 2004
              On Tue, 04 May 2004 15:24:18 +0000, elmeras2000
              <jer@...> wrote:

              >But yes, the behaviour of reduplicated verbs do play a major role in
              >what controversy remains between Jasanoff and myself.

              That can't be the only thing. I'm afraid I'm mainly with
              Jasanoff on the reduplication (or lack of). But surely, his
              treatment of "i-presents" (Ch. 4) would have looked much
              better if he had recognized (by reading you) that the -i is
              no "extension", and that there are soundlaws governing the
              behaviour of -eHi- clusters (although in the end he gets
              more or less the correct result with his AHIHA-rule). His
              treatment of the 3rd. pl. forms would have profited from
              recognizing that there's a soundlaw -n > -r, and he also
              doesn't seem to be aware of the voiced/voiceless rule for
              the quality of the thematic vowel (which means 1sg. them.
              *-oh2 cannot possibly work in that shape).

              >> >I have no
              >> >problem accepting it even for a time preceding the split-off of
              >> >Anatolian, so if there is too much <te-> in 'say' in Hittite,
              >>
              >> That's the opposite phenomenon: e-grade in the 3pl. (and
              >> 2pl., rarely 1pl.) mi-conjugation preterite where one would
              >> expect zero-grade (appwen/epten/eppir, esuwen/esten/esir).
              >
              >Hitt. <te-> has no zero-grade alternants if <tar-> is a different
              >root; therefore there is no interesting distribution of vowel grades
              >in this particular Hittite verb.

              Then I don't understand why you brought it up (and I
              maintain that the most likely possibility is that te- and
              tar- are the same root, like har- and hark-).

              =======================
              Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
              mcv@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.