Re: o-grade thoughts
- View Source
> What I imagine, very sketchily, is an early situation with regard toAnd I also believe that these verbal stems of the hi-conjugation
> verb stems something like this:
> PPIE *CaC- -> PIE *CeC-, normal neutral stem
> PPIE *a-CaC- -> PIE *iCoC- -> *CoC-,
> indicating singularity of action
> PPIE *Ca-CaC -> PIE *CeCC-,
> indicating plurality of action, ie multiple subjects, repetition
> (and similarly with root vowels i and u, obviously)
were nominal in nature. Cf. the words of the "language of bird
Now watch me do tricks with my new nominal prefix:
PPIE *pad- -> PIE *ped-
PPIE *a-pad- -> *i-pod- -> PIE *pod-
Nice, huh? I get this free of charge by positing the prefix.
This ablaut relation is particularly hard to crack, since
there is normally not any surroundings to the root to "blame"
for the ablaut. The attempts I've seen to derive it from
different cases have not been convincing.
It would be nice to observe that the a- prefix means "singular"
or "piece of" in the language of bird names. In fact, it's the
other way round. Back to the drawing board.
- View Sourcefurther from the same text:
It is now generally accepted that the Proto-Semitic aspectual system
is to be reconstructed to resemble that found in Akkadian. This system
contains two prefixal forms, one *ya-prus 'he separated' (perfective),
and another, *ya-paras 'he is separating' (imperfective). The third
prefix conjugation exists only in Akkadian as the perfect form
i-p-t-aras 'he has separated'. Its Proto-Semitic status has been
proposed by Voigt (1987) on the basis of further evidence from Berber
and Bedawye (North Cushitic). Of fundamental importance for the later
developments in Semitic is the ambivalence of the reconstructed
'middle-perfect' form *ya-p-t-aras (intransitive *ya-q-t-arVb 'he is
close' and 'he got close') between the perfect and the mediopassive
perfective (cf. Bubenik 2003).
Akkadian, preterite singular
PIE, perfect singular
*-h2-e -> *-a
*-th2-e -> *-ta
*-Ø-e -> *-e