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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.