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

What is a "regular (endocentric) thematicization"?

Expand Messages
  • r_brunner
    The Wiktionary entry at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/war#Tocharian_B for the Tocharian B word for water gives a PIE form *udrom as the probable origin for
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 18 1:29 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      The Wiktionary entry at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/war#Tocharian_B for the Tocharian B word for "water" gives a PIE form *udrom as the probable origin for this and states that *udrom is a "regular (endocentric) thematicization".

      I could not find out what this means. Does this say that already in PIE there might have been a special form *udrom of the "water" word and say something how that form might have developed?

      I traced the info back to the entry for "war" in "A Dictionary of Tocharian B" by Douglas Q. Adams, so it's probably reasonably up-to-date, but that entry does not include more explanation concerning this.

      And what is *udrom in the root-suffix-ending scheme? *ud-r-om? With what roles for suffix "r" and ending "om"?
    • Rajan Menon
      Perhaps a parallel formation in RgVedic may help: udaka : water. MWD give the root as ud and notes various various developments of this root such as: A
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 18 10:50 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Perhaps a parallel formation in RgVedic may help:

        udaka : water.
        MWD give the root as ud and notes various various developments of this root such as:
        A particle and pre-fix to verbs and nouns.
        unatti : to flow to issue out.
        udra: a kind of aquatic animal
        udric : abound in
        udruja : undermining, etc.
        ud-ruc: shining forth, etc.

        I may be wrong but udrom < ud uuh ( pie derivation) push up from and / or ud-r. start up-rise from> also leading to > ud-arc.

        Thanks.

        Rajan Menon

          


        On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 2:29 AM, r_brunner <rbrunner@...> wrote:
         

        The Wiktionary entry at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/war#Tocharian_B for the Tocharian B word for "water" gives a PIE form *udrom as the probable origin for this and states that *udrom is a "regular (endocentric) thematicization".

        I could not find out what this means. Does this say that already in PIE there might have been a special form *udrom of the "water" word and say something how that form might have developed?

        I traced the info back to the entry for "war" in "A Dictionary of Tocharian B" by Douglas Q. Adams, so it's probably reasonably up-to-date, but that entry does not include more explanation concerning this.

        And what is *udrom in the root-suffix-ending scheme? *ud-r-om? With what roles for suffix "r" and ending "om"?


      • Rajan Menon
        note : udra (Vedic) Udder
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 18 11:51 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          note : udra (Vedic) Udder


          On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Rajan Menon <vajradanta5@...> wrote:
          Perhaps a parallel formation in RgVedic may help:

          udaka : water.
          MWD give the root as ud and notes various various developments of this root such as:
          A particle and pre-fix to verbs and nouns.
          unatti : to flow to issue out.
          udra: a kind of aquatic animal
          udric : abound in
          udruja : undermining, etc.
          ud-ruc: shining forth, etc.

          I may be wrong but udrom < ud uuh ( pie derivation) push up from and / or ud-r. start up-rise from> also leading to > ud-arc.

          Thanks.

          Rajan Menon

            


          On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 2:29 AM, r_brunner <rbrunner@...> wrote:
           

          The Wiktionary entry at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/war#Tocharian_B for the Tocharian B word for "water" gives a PIE form *udrom as the probable origin for this and states that *udrom is a "regular (endocentric) thematicization".

          I could not find out what this means. Does this say that already in PIE there might have been a special form *udrom of the "water" word and say something how that form might have developed?

          I traced the info back to the entry for "war" in "A Dictionary of Tocharian B" by Douglas Q. Adams, so it's probably reasonably up-to-date, but that entry does not include more explanation concerning this.

          And what is *udrom in the root-suffix-ending scheme? *ud-r-om? With what roles for suffix "r" and ending "om"?



        • Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
          ... Thematicization means that a thematic vowel *-o- is added to a consonantal stem, in this case *udr-. Endocentric has two meanings: 1) in derivational
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 20 12:05 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            2013/8/18, r_brunner <rbrunner@...>:
            > The Wiktionary entry at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/war#Tocharian_B for
            > the Tocharian B word for "water" gives a PIE form *udrom as the probable
            > origin for this and states that *udrom is a "regular (endocentric)
            > thematicization".
            >
            > I could not find out what this means. Does this say that already in PIE
            > there might have been a special form *udrom of the "water" word and say
            > something how that form might have developed?

            'Thematicization' means that a thematic vowel *-o- is added to a
            consonantal stem, in this case *udr-. 'Endocentric' has two meanings:
            1) in derivational morphology, it's a derivation without suffixes and,
            precisely, based on the weak stem (= stem of the Genitive case) of the
            basic word, in this case *udr- (Nominative *wed-ōr, Genitive *ud-r-os,
            stem *ud-r- + ending *-os);
            2) in thematicizations and compositional morphology, an endocentric
            derivation keeps the same referent of the basic word, while an
            exocentric one gets possessive meaning (e.g. *'udro-, with root
            accent, should mean 'water', while *udr-'o-, with suffixal accent,
            should mean 'having water').

            In this case both meanings of 'endocentric' seem to have been
            conflated together, since *udr-o- is both base on weak stem *ud-r- and
            provided with the same referent 'water'

            >
            > I traced the info back to the entry for "war" in "A Dictionary of Tocharian
            > B" by Douglas Q. Adams, so it's probably reasonably up-to-date, but that
            > entry does not include more explanation concerning this.
            >
            > And what is *udrom in the root-suffix-ending scheme? *ud-r-om? With what
            > roles for suffix "r" and ending "om"?
            >
            zero grade for both root (*ud-) and suffix (*-r-) implies a basic
            word with a hysterokinetic or amphikinetic paradigm (hysterokinetic =
            strong stems with zero-grade root, accented full or lengthened suffix
            and zero ending, weak stems with zero grado root and suffix and
            accented full-grade endings; amphikinetic = strong stems with
            full-grade accented root, zero-grade suffix, and lengthened ending,
            weak stems with zero grado root and suffix and accented full-grade
            endings, although in strong stems the lengthened grade can affect the
            suffix instead of the ending);
            the ending *-o-m exhibits thematic vowel, in the thought of our
            most regretted Jens a sort of postponed article, with the marker of
            non-animate gender in direct cases
          • r_brunner
            ... Thanks for this extensive information! The more I learn about PIE the more I am amazed about the PIE root-suffix-ending word formation scheme. I have some
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 21 1:35 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
              >
              > 2013/8/18, r_brunner <rbrunner@...>:
              > > The Wiktionary entry at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/war#Tocharian_B for
              > > the Tocharian B word for "water" gives a PIE form *udrom as the probable
              > > origin for this and states that *udrom is a "regular (endocentric)
              > > thematicization".
              > >
              > > I could not find out what this means. Does this say that already in PIE
              > > there might have been a special form *udrom of the "water" word and say
              > > something how that form might have developed?
              >
              > 'Thematicization' means that a thematic vowel *-o- is added to a
              > consonantal stem, in this case *udr-. 'Endocentric' has two meanings:
              > 1) in derivational morphology, it's a derivation without suffixes and,
              > precisely, based on the weak stem (= stem of the Genitive case) of the
              > basic word, in this case *udr- (Nominative *wed-ōr, Genitive *ud-r-os,
              > stem *ud-r- + ending *-os);
              > 2) in thematicizations and compositional morphology, an endocentric
              > derivation keeps the same referent of the basic word, while an
              > exocentric one gets possessive meaning (e.g. *'udro-, with root
              > accent, should mean 'water', while *udr-'o-, with suffixal accent,
              > should mean 'having water').
              >
              > In this case both meanings of 'endocentric' seem to have been
              > conflated together, since *udr-o- is both base on weak stem *ud-r- and
              > provided with the same referent 'water'
              >
              > >
              > > I traced the info back to the entry for "war" in "A Dictionary of Tocharian
              > > B" by Douglas Q. Adams, so it's probably reasonably up-to-date, but that
              > > entry does not include more explanation concerning this.
              > >
              > > And what is *udrom in the root-suffix-ending scheme? *ud-r-om? With what
              > > roles for suffix "r" and ending "om"?
              > >
              > zero grade for both root (*ud-) and suffix (*-r-) implies a basic
              > word with a hysterokinetic or amphikinetic paradigm (hysterokinetic =
              > strong stems with zero-grade root, accented full or lengthened suffix
              > and zero ending, weak stems with zero grado root and suffix and
              > accented full-grade endings; amphikinetic = strong stems with
              > full-grade accented root, zero-grade suffix, and lengthened ending,
              > weak stems with zero grado root and suffix and accented full-grade
              > endings, although in strong stems the lengthened grade can affect the
              > suffix instead of the ending);
              > the ending *-o-m exhibits thematic vowel, in the thought of our
              > most regretted Jens a sort of postponed article, with the marker of
              > non-animate gender in direct cases
              >

              Thanks for this extensive information!

              The more I learn about PIE the more I am amazed about the PIE root-suffix-ending word formation scheme. I have some difficulty to really grasp that a language could form words in such a highly systematic way.

              Were linguists surprised when they had finally puzzled this together, or are there precedents? Are there other - current, living - languages that have a similar system of word formation?
            • Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
              Semitic languages, especially Arabic, are even much more complex (Just think in PIE there were five ablaut grades vs. a theoretic maximum of... 81 in Semitic
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 21 3:29 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Semitic languages, especially Arabic, are even much more complex (Just
                think in PIE there were five ablaut grades vs. a theoretic maximum
                of... 81 in Semitic words!)

                2013/8/21, r_brunner <rbrunner@...>:
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
                > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
                >>
                >> 2013/8/18, r_brunner <rbrunner@...>:
                >> > The Wiktionary entry at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/war#Tocharian_B
                >> > for
                >> > the Tocharian B word for "water" gives a PIE form *udrom as the
                >> > probable
                >> > origin for this and states that *udrom is a "regular (endocentric)
                >> > thematicization".
                >> >
                >> > I could not find out what this means. Does this say that already in PIE
                >> > there might have been a special form *udrom of the "water" word and say
                >> > something how that form might have developed?
                >>
                >> 'Thematicization' means that a thematic vowel *-o- is added to a
                >> consonantal stem, in this case *udr-. 'Endocentric' has two meanings:
                >> 1) in derivational morphology, it's a derivation without suffixes and,
                >> precisely, based on the weak stem (= stem of the Genitive case) of the
                >> basic word, in this case *udr- (Nominative *wed-Å r, Genitive *ud-r-os,
                >> stem *ud-r- + ending *-os);
                >> 2) in thematicizations and compositional morphology, an endocentric
                >> derivation keeps the same referent of the basic word, while an
                >> exocentric one gets possessive meaning (e.g. *'udro-, with root
                >> accent, should mean 'water', while *udr-'o-, with suffixal accent,
                >> should mean 'having water').
                >>
                >> In this case both meanings of 'endocentric' seem to have been
                >> conflated together, since *udr-o- is both base on weak stem *ud-r- and
                >> provided with the same referent 'water'
                >>
                >> >
                >> > I traced the info back to the entry for "war" in "A Dictionary of
                >> > Tocharian
                >> > B" by Douglas Q. Adams, so it's probably reasonably up-to-date, but
                >> > that
                >> > entry does not include more explanation concerning this.
                >> >
                >> > And what is *udrom in the root-suffix-ending scheme? *ud-r-om? With
                >> > what
                >> > roles for suffix "r" and ending "om"?
                >> >
                >> zero grade for both root (*ud-) and suffix (*-r-) implies a basic
                >> word with a hysterokinetic or amphikinetic paradigm (hysterokinetic =
                >> strong stems with zero-grade root, accented full or lengthened suffix
                >> and zero ending, weak stems with zero grado root and suffix and
                >> accented full-grade endings; amphikinetic = strong stems with
                >> full-grade accented root, zero-grade suffix, and lengthened ending,
                >> weak stems with zero grado root and suffix and accented full-grade
                >> endings, although in strong stems the lengthened grade can affect the
                >> suffix instead of the ending);
                >> the ending *-o-m exhibits thematic vowel, in the thought of our
                >> most regretted Jens a sort of postponed article, with the marker of
                >> non-animate gender in direct cases
                >>
                >
                > Thanks for this extensive information!
                >
                > The more I learn about PIE the more I am amazed about the PIE
                > root-suffix-ending word formation scheme. I have some difficulty to really
                > grasp that a language could form words in such a highly systematic way.
                >
                > Were linguists surprised when they had finally puzzled this together, or are
                > there precedents? Are there other - current, living - languages that have a
                > similar system of word formation?
                >
                >
              • dgkilday57
                ... The etymology cited seems problematic. No absorption of a dental stop before /r/ is observed in Toch. A _pratri_ two brothers , and heteroclites are
                Message 7 of 9 , Aug 21 8:43 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > 2013/8/18, r_brunner <rbrunner@...>:
                  > > The Wiktionary entry at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/war#Tocharian_B for
                  > > the Tocharian B word for "water" gives a PIE form *udrom as the probable
                  > > origin for this and states that *udrom is a "regular (endocentric)
                  > > thematicization".
                  > >
                  > > I could not find out what this means. Does this say that already in PIE
                  > > there might have been a special form *udrom of the "water" word and say
                  > > something how that form might have developed?
                  >
                  > 'Thematicization' means that a thematic vowel *-o- is added to a
                  > consonantal stem, in this case *udr-. 'Endocentric' has two meanings:
                  > 1) in derivational morphology, it's a derivation without suffixes and,
                  > precisely, based on the weak stem (= stem of the Genitive case) of the
                  > basic word, in this case *udr- (Nominative *wed-ór, Genitive *ud-r-os,
                  > stem *ud-r- + ending *-os);
                  > 2) in thematicizations and compositional morphology, an endocentric
                  > derivation keeps the same referent of the basic word, while an
                  > exocentric one gets possessive meaning (e.g. *'udro-, with root
                  > accent, should mean 'water', while *udr-'o-, with suffixal accent,
                  > should mean 'having water').
                  >
                  > In this case both meanings of 'endocentric' seem to have been
                  > conflated together, since *udr-o- is both base on weak stem *ud-r- and
                  > provided with the same referent 'water'
                  >
                  > >
                  > > I traced the info back to the entry for "war" in "A Dictionary of Tocharian
                  > > B" by Douglas Q. Adams, so it's probably reasonably up-to-date, but that
                  > > entry does not include more explanation concerning this.
                  > >
                  > > And what is *udrom in the root-suffix-ending scheme? *ud-r-om? With what
                  > > roles for suffix "r" and ending "om"?
                  > >
                  > zero grade for both root (*ud-) and suffix (*-r-) implies a basic
                  > word with a hysterokinetic or amphikinetic paradigm (hysterokinetic =
                  > strong stems with zero-grade root, accented full or lengthened suffix
                  > and zero ending, weak stems with zero grado root and suffix and
                  > accented full-grade endings; amphikinetic = strong stems with
                  > full-grade accented root, zero-grade suffix, and lengthened ending,
                  > weak stems with zero grado root and suffix and accented full-grade
                  > endings, although in strong stems the lengthened grade can affect the
                  > suffix instead of the ending);
                  > the ending *-o-m exhibits thematic vowel, in the thought of our
                  > most regretted Jens a sort of postponed article, with the marker of
                  > non-animate gender in direct cases
                  >

                  The etymology cited seems problematic. No absorption of a dental stop before /r/ is observed in Toch. A _pratri_ 'two brothers', and heteroclites are represented by Toch. A _yta:r_, B _yta:rye_ 'way' = Hitt. _itar_, gen. _innas_ = Lat. _iter_, gen. _itineris_; Toch. A _ysa:r_ 'blood' = Hitt. _eshar_, gen. _eshanas_ = OL _as(s)er_.

                  J. Pokorny (IEW 80) filed Toch. A _wär_, B _war_ under a root *we:r-/*wer-, itself under *awer- (*we:r-/*u:r-). This is no less problematic. Toch. AB _pär-_ 'to bear, bring, fetch' from PIE *bHer- (IEW 132) leads us to expect AB _wär_ from *wer-, not B _war_. Pokorny has conflated at least four distinct roots in his classification. The observed ablaut *we:r-/*u:r- obviously represents *weh1r-/*uh1r-, and this root explains full-grade forms like Skt. _va:r_, _va:ri_ 'water', zero-grade forms like Lat. _u:ri:na_ 'urine', and Balto-Slavic forms requiring a laryngeal like Lith. _vérdu_, _vìrti_ 'to spout, seethe, boil'. Another root *h2/4aur- appears as the river-name element *Aur- and in appellatives like OE _e:ar_ 'lake'. Still another root *wers- occurs in Skt. _várs.ati_ 'it is raining', Grk. _oûron_ 'urine', etc.

                  Finally, Pokorny derived Arm. _gayr._ 'swamp, mud' from *w{e}rjo- using reduced grade, the duct tape of old-time Indo-Europeanists. After all these decades, the tape has cracked and disintegrated. I think we need another root *wh2/4ar-, not the reduced grade of *wer-. Appearing simply as *war-, this root plays an important role in H. Krahe's Old European Hydronymy, identified in the names of 25 streams (Die Struktur der alteuropäischen Hydronymie 54-5). Krahe (ib. 5-6) followed Pokorny in identifying the root as *wer-, attributing the vocalism to the reflection of /o/-grade in languages which shifted */o/ to */a/. He found 7 river-names requiring the /e/-grade (ib. 55-6) and 4 examples of *Vurma on Germanic-speaking land (ib. 57), presumably from zero-grade of *wer-.

                  This makeshift is in turn problematic. Krahe's own view was that his Old European was Common (Old) Western Indo-European, ancestral to the Western IE languages. I believe this is substantially correct, provided we exclude Balto-Slavic and Illyro-Lusitanian from Western IE, leaving us with Celtic, Italic, Venetic, Ligurian, and Germanic as the principal daughters of OWIE. (Obviously I have no use for W.P. Schmid's attempt to identify OWIE with Proto-Baltic and PIE itself, or D. Ringe's grouping of Germanic with Balto-Slavic.) But Krahe lists no protoforms of river-names in *Wor- against the 25 in *War-. It defies credulity that all these rivers must have been named by speakers of WIE dialects which had replaced */o/ by */a/, with historical speakers of /o/-retaining languages only arriving later (including Ligurians with their Vara, Varia, Varisia, and Varus, and Veneti with their Varamus). We find in Norway a Varma, a Verma, and an Orma (formerly *Vurma). Verma and *Vurma can represent /e/-grade and zero-grade of *wer- (probably not a water-word per se, but the unextended root 'to bend, turn, wind', which many rivers do). According to Krahe we should understand Varma as /o/-grade, but I am inclined to regard it as /e/-grade of *wh2/4er- (surfacing as *wh2/4ar-) and morphologically parallel to Verma.

                  Getting back to the original issue, I wonder whether Toch. A _wär_, B _war_ both belong with Arm. _gayr._ and the OEH river-names in *War- rather than with derivatives of *wed-r/n- like Eng. _water_.

                  DGK
                • Rajan Menon
                  Thanks for the analysis. In Vedic ab apam also signifies water. Thus we have pancha ab Punjab ( the land of the five rivers). We have also
                  Message 8 of 9 , Aug 22 5:09 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks for the analysis.
                    In Vedic "ab" "apam" also signifies water. Thus we have "pancha ab" > Punjab ( the land of the five rivers). We have also "apamnapaat".



                    On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 2:35 PM, r_brunner <rbrunner@...> wrote:
                     



                    --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > 2013/8/18, r_brunner <rbrunner@...>:
                    > > The Wiktionary entry at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/war#Tocharian_B for
                    > > the Tocharian B word for "water" gives a PIE form *udrom as the probable
                    > > origin for this and states that *udrom is a "regular (endocentric)
                    > > thematicization".
                    > >
                    > > I could not find out what this means. Does this say that already in PIE
                    > > there might have been a special form *udrom of the "water" word and say
                    > > something how that form might have developed?
                    >
                    > 'Thematicization' means that a thematic vowel *-o- is added to a
                    > consonantal stem, in this case *udr-. 'Endocentric' has two meanings:
                    > 1) in derivational morphology, it's a derivation without suffixes and,
                    > precisely, based on the weak stem (= stem of the Genitive case) of the
                    > basic word, in this case *udr- (Nominative *wed-Å r, Genitive *ud-r-os,
                    > stem *ud-r- + ending *-os);
                    > 2) in thematicizations and compositional morphology, an endocentric
                    > derivation keeps the same referent of the basic word, while an
                    > exocentric one gets possessive meaning (e.g. *'udro-, with root
                    > accent, should mean 'water', while *udr-'o-, with suffixal accent,
                    > should mean 'having water').
                    >
                    > In this case both meanings of 'endocentric' seem to have been
                    > conflated together, since *udr-o- is both base on weak stem *ud-r- and
                    > provided with the same referent 'water'
                    >
                    > >
                    > > I traced the info back to the entry for "war" in "A Dictionary of Tocharian
                    > > B" by Douglas Q. Adams, so it's probably reasonably up-to-date, but that
                    > > entry does not include more explanation concerning this.
                    > >
                    > > And what is *udrom in the root-suffix-ending scheme? *ud-r-om? With what
                    > > roles for suffix "r" and ending "om"?
                    > >
                    > zero grade for both root (*ud-) and suffix (*-r-) implies a basic
                    > word with a hysterokinetic or amphikinetic paradigm (hysterokinetic =
                    > strong stems with zero-grade root, accented full or lengthened suffix
                    > and zero ending, weak stems with zero grado root and suffix and
                    > accented full-grade endings; amphikinetic = strong stems with
                    > full-grade accented root, zero-grade suffix, and lengthened ending,
                    > weak stems with zero grado root and suffix and accented full-grade
                    > endings, although in strong stems the lengthened grade can affect the
                    > suffix instead of the ending);
                    > the ending *-o-m exhibits thematic vowel, in the thought of our
                    > most regretted Jens a sort of postponed article, with the marker of
                    > non-animate gender in direct cases
                    >

                    Thanks for this extensive information!

                    The more I learn about PIE the more I am amazed about the PIE root-suffix-ending word formation scheme. I have some difficulty to really grasp that a language could form words in such a highly systematic way.

                    Were linguists surprised when they had finally puzzled this together, or are there precedents? Are there other - current, living - languages that have a similar system of word formation?


                  • Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
                    Very good point!
                    Message 9 of 9 , Aug 22 3:58 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Very good point!

                      2013/8/22, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
                      > (...) Krahe's own view was that his Old
                      > European was Common (Old) Western Indo-European, ancestral to the Western IE
                      > languages. I believe this is substantially correct (...)
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.