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

Re: [tied] -s- and verbs

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Ryan
    ... From: tgpedersen To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:57 AM
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 12, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:57 AM
      Subject: [tied] -s- and verbs

      <snip>


      Back to linguistics:

      This means that a suffix that changes a stative or durative
      verb to make it denote something punctual, will by that same
      act make it denote something punctual in the past *or* in the
      future.

      Which means that the -s- of the s-aorist might be identical to
      the Baltic future in -s-, if we define the primary function of
      that suffix as that of making the verb denote something punctual
      (we might have to give up the link to the desiderative, though).

      What do you guys think?

      Torsten

      ***

      I wrote some months ago that I believed the earliest function of -*s as it occurs in what later were interpreted as -*s-aorists was to impart singularity.

      This has been my position for some 15+ years: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ProtoLanguage-Monosyllables.htm#SE

      With -*s, a _lexical_ durative is made into a new _lexical_ punctual verb.

      Tense was not a characteristic of earliest PIE.

       

      Patrick

      ***

      .

    • tgpedersen
      ... -*s as it occurs in what later were interpreted as -*s-aorists was to impart singularity. ... punctual verb. Wow, we agree on something ;-) ... You
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 13, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        > Back to linguistics:
        >
        > This means that a suffix that changes a stative or durative
        > verb to make it denote something punctual, will by that same
        > act make it denote something punctual in the past *or* in the
        > future.
        >
        > Which means that the -s- of the s-aorist might be identical to
        > the Baltic future in -s-, if we define the primary function of
        > that suffix as that of making the verb denote something punctual
        > (we might have to give up the link to the desiderative, though).
        >
        > What do you guys think?
        >
        > Torsten
        >
        > ***
        >
        > I wrote some months ago that I believed the earliest function of
        -*s as it occurs in what later were interpreted as -*s-aorists was to
        impart singularity.
        >
        > This has been my position for some 15+ years:
        >
        > With -*s, a _lexical_ durative is made into a new _lexical_
        punctual verb.

        Wow, we agree on something ;-)


        > Tense was not a characteristic of earliest PIE.

        You probably mean that verbs were not inflected for tense.


        If future *-s and aorist *-s is the same suffix, it must be
        significant that in Hittite and Tocharian it is confined to
        the 3sg. (in the ind.) and in Baltic the whole future seem
        to be built by adding endings to the 3sg,

        bú:siu, bú:si, bùs, bú:sime, bú:site

        in short, the -s is in auslaut in 3sg. One gets the impression
        from that isolation that it was some kind of impersonal.
        The Latin future is

        faxo:, faxis, faxit, faximus, faxitis, faxunt (vel. sím. ;-)

        With a little imagination, Latin might once have had a sole 3sg.
        *fax, cf fa:s "it is permitted", if interpreted as "it has been
        revealed", ie. that statement once arrived from "the other side",
        it suddenly became present, apparent.

        *bhw-ak-s -> fax, *bhw-ak -> *bhwax + *-s -> fa:s (*-ak -> *-ax
        is the factitive suffix)



        Torsten
      • tgpedersen
        ... It would be nice to know where the aorist/future *-s- came from, and I have an idea. The si-imperatives are supposedly from a haplologized 2sg. subj. pres.
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 15, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          > If future *-s and aorist *-s is the same suffix, it must be
          > significant that in Hittite and Tocharian it is confined to
          > the 3sg. (in the ind.) and in Baltic the whole future seem
          > to be built by adding endings to the 3sg,
          >
          > bú:siu, bú:si, bùs, bú:sime, bú:site
          >
          > in short, the -s is in auslaut in 3sg. One gets the impression
          > from that isolation that it was some kind of impersonal.
          > The Latin future is
          >
          > faxo:, faxis, faxit, faximus, faxitis, faxunt (vel. sím. ;-)
          >
          > With a little imagination, Latin might once have had a sole 3sg.
          > *fax, cf fa:s "it is permitted", if interpreted as "it has been
          > revealed", ie. that statement once arrived from "the other side",
          > it suddenly became present, apparent.
          >
          > *bhw-ak-s -> fax, *bhw-ak -> *bhwax + *-s -> fa:s (*-ak -> *-ax
          > is the factitive suffix)
          >


          It would be nice to know where the aorist/future *-s- came from,
          and I have an idea.

          The si-imperatives are supposedly from a haplologized 2sg. subj.
          pres. in *-sesi. No one provides a reason why it haplologized.
          Suppose however, that a 2sg subj. *X-si used as an imperative
          was wrongfully analysed as an imperative *X-s-i of a stem
          *X-s-. Now, the imperatives are always by nature ingressive-
          inchoative; if you tell someone to be in a state, you tell
          him to get into that state. 'Sit down!' means 'set yourself down',
          'stand up' means 'get yourself into an upright position' etc.
          Therefore, semantically the supposed stem *X-s- could mean
          nothing but 'begin to X', which is exactly the semantics of
          the aorist.

          When the -s- was added to the stem of the present subjunctive,
          the s-aorist subjunctive was created (that's where the supposed
          haplologized *-sesi was from). Why the s-form also got
          into the 3sg pret ind in Hittite and Tocharian, I'll have to
          figure out.


          Torsten
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.