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

Re: [tied] What is a "regular (endocentric) thematicization"?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Aug 21, 2013
    • 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 2 of 9 , Aug 22, 2013
      • 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 3 of 9 , Aug 22, 2013
        • 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.