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

Re: [tied] Re: PIE Punctual and Durative

Expand Messages
  • P&G
    ... Doesn t this also relate to the fact that present stem formations are normally marked, whereas aorists aren t? I mean the present forms are formed from a
    Message 1 of 45 , Jan 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      >This explains the typological oddity of the "primary" endings being
      >apparently marked with respect to the "secondary" ones.

      Doesn't this also relate to the fact that present stem formations are
      normally marked, whereas aorists aren't?
      I mean the present forms are formed from a root by the addition of markers
      such as CiC- or -eyo- or nasal infix, etc.
      Doesn't that also indicate that what became the aorist was the unmarked
      form?

      Peter
    • tgpedersen
      ... Eugen Hill http://www.indogermanistik.lmu.de/VrddhiKonj.pdf argues as follows about the Narten presents Die tatsächlich überlieferten unzweideutig als
      Message 45 of 45 , Jan 16, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > > >> A couple of aorist injunctives probably functioned like plain
        > > >> imperatives already in PIE: *dHéh1-s 'put!' and *dóh3-s 'give!'
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Ah, nice, there's my subitive stem. Hittite pahsi "protect!" etc
        > > > should then have been emendated by adding imperative *-ei/*-i
        > > > (cf. Slavic) to that perceived stem. Shouldn't they have
        > > > vr.ddhi, BTW?
        > >
        > > No. *dHeh1-s has the 2sg. -s, which doesn't cause any lengthening
        > > anywhere.
        >
        >
        > Right of course. In the standard theory it's stressed normal grade
        > in 123sg, unstressed zero grade in 123pl for presents, excepting
        > Narten roots, and for root aorists. In Schmalstieg's version they
        > are distributed on 23sg,2pl and 1sg,13pl respectively instead.


        Eugen Hill
        http://www.indogermanistik.lmu.de/VrddhiKonj.pdf
        argues as follows about the Narten presents
        "
        Die tatsächlich überlieferten unzweideutig als 'Narten-Präsentien' zu
        bestimmenden Bildungen des älteren Ved. weisen in der Wz. ihrer
        schwachen Stamm-Alternante im Akt. ausschließlich, im Med. oft
        tiefstufige Wz. auf: man vgl. aus dem RV 3.Sg.Inj. staut, Ind. a-staut
        ~ 1.Pl.Ind. stumási, 3.Pl.Ind. stuvanti, 2.Sg.Ipv. stuhí und 1.Sg.Ind.
        má:rjmi ~ 3.Pl.Ind. mr.jánti, 3.Sg.Inj.M. mr.s.t.a. Die tiefstufigen
        Flexionsformen der 'Narten-Präsentien' vom Typ ved. stumási und
        mr.jánti erklärt man seit Narten (1968) durch die Annahme einer
        analogischen Angleichung an die Wz.-Präsentien mit gewöhnlichem
        Ablaut zwischen betonter Voll- und unbetonter Tiefstufe. Man muß sich
        allerdings fragen (vgl. bereits Lindeman 1972: 71), über welche Formen
        diese Analogie gewirkt hätte: ein 'Narten-Präsens' vom Typ uriir.
        *má:rj^- ~ *márj^- (die übliche Rekonstruktion) würde mit dem
        'gewöhnlichen' Wz.-Präsens wie z.B. uriir. *ráijH- ~ *rijH-´
        eigentlich keinerlei Berührungspunkte aufweisen.
        ...
        Somit legt der Befund des älteren Ved. für den Inj.-Ind. der
        'Narten-Präsentien' nicht die übliche Rekonstruktion uridg. *sté:w- ~
        *stéw- nahe, sondern das – wie man zugeben muß – ablauttheoretisch
        etwas seltsame uridg. *sté:w- ~ *stu-´.
        "

        In other words, if we look at facts alone, we must assume some verbs
        had alternation between lengthened and zero grade. Outside the present
        they had full-grade forms, eg. stos.am.

        I don't have access to Narten's article; these are the Narten verbs I
        find in Burrow:
        stauti, which has an extended stem of the same meaning stubh
        yauti, which has an extended stem of the same meaning yuj
        ma:rjti, of which I know nothing

        On this small material, I dare the following proposal: lengthened
        grade in Narten roots is caused by loss of extension (which is no
        extension at all but the lost tail of the root) in the 2,3sg
        secondary, caused by he loss of ending there. The two separate roots
        arose by generalizing from the full and mutilated roots. The
        grammarians refused to contemplate the idea that a root could be
        mutilated and therefore chalked them both up as roots.

        The full injunctive paradigm would have looked like

        steubhom
        ste:u
        ste:u
        stubhomé
        stubheté
        stubhént

        and

        yeugom
        ye:u
        ye:u
        yungomé
        yungeté
        yungént

        and

        marj^ I don't know what to do with.


        This might be the origin of long-diphthong roots too.



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