Re: [Lambengolmor] Aorist across verb classes
- [Greg had written:]
> This could mean that derived stems either have no aorist; or that theirI'm sorry, I was going back to Quenya on that one.
> aorist is identical to their "present continuous".
I talked to a greek studying friend of mine who assures me that in ancient
greek at any rate, there are no whole verb classes which do not have an
aorist, although you do come across the odd verb or two which don't
- "G. Dyke" wrote:
> I'm afraid I have no Greek to add, but Ivan's remark thatRoughly speaking, the presence of more derivational morphology
> "the latter is typical of lexical innovations" reminds me
> of the French infinitive forms:
in lexical innovations may conflict with whatever inflexional
morphology distinguishes the two stems in the verbs of the core
> although I know of no other languages with aorist, it does not seemGoing back to Quenya: If it is the case that the present stem
> particularly strange that some verb classes should have a particular
> form which others don't.
is obtained from the aorist one by lengthening the root vowel
and replacing the final vowel by _-a_ (as in the pair _quete_
`says' vs _quéta_ `is saying'), what shall we expect if (as in
the case of _-ta/-ya_-verbs) the aorist stem already ends in _-a_
and the root vowel can't be lengthened, because it is in a closed
syllable? -- The two stems will coincide, which the language may
or may not do something about. I'd say that, on the whole,
languages tend to tolerate this sort of ambiguity.
- --- In lambengolmor@y..., "G. Dyke" <gordon.dyke@b...> wrote:
> This is an effect that also happens in some more "archaic" tenses likeThis is not entirely correct, sorry!
> the German subjunctive: which has forms only for the auxiliary and modal
> verbs (and for some strange reason the verb "to know") all the other
> verbs having this tense formed with the assistance of a the modal
1. The subjunctive is not a tense, it has forms in all tenses.
2. There are two subjuntives in German.
3. Both have basic forms (without auxiliary verbs) for all verbs, but
some of them may coincide with other verb forms.
Let's concentrate on subjunctive 2 (expressing wishes, irreal
Example: "singen" (sing). It's a strong verb, past tense "er sang"
(3. sg.), past participle "gesungen" (that's called ablaut). The
subjunctive (present tense) would be formed by umlaut mutation of the
stem vowel in past tense: "er sänge".
This rule was adopted for the less ancient weak verbs, forming past
tense with suffix "-t(e)(n)", even for some without ablaut:
brauchen -> er brauchte -> er bräuchte.
However, there's a whole class of verbs where the forms coincide with
past tense, because umlaut mutation is impossible (stem vowel "i/ie"
or umlaut in past tense). In other cases, the umlaut mutated forms
were abandoned for historical reasons ("wöllte"), or ancient strong
forms were replaced by weak forms: "fragen" (ask) has past
tense "fragte" instead of "frug" now, and the subjunctive 2 would
be "früge", not "*frägte".
In all those cases, the subjunctive coincides with forms of past
tense, and where this could lead to ambiguity, the construction with
an auxiliary verb ("fragen" -> "würde fragen") was introduced.
This leads to the consequence that the original forms of the
subjunctive are almost out of usage in vernacular now, replaced by
the auxiliary construction even when it isn't necessary.
They still exist in correct, literary German, however (listen to the
news in tv :-): "Ich wünschte, Du kämest" (I wished you came).
Since it is the continuation of an old, natural trend towards weak,
analytical construction, the subjunctive will probably vanish in the
standard language, too, whether one likes it or not (I don't :-).
There's a question connected with ablaut in past tense related to
nasal infixion: "gehen" (go) -> "er ging". The other direction would
be "denken" (think) -> "er dachte", cf. "Gedanke" (thought).
Since one would only expect another vowel here, this is an indication
for ancient nasal vowel, changing into "in/en/an" later. Such nasal
vowels remained in some other Indo-European languages (Polish), they
aren't a mere hypothesis.
Now nasal infixion plays an important role in Quenya. Is there any
hint at the former existence of nasal vowels in primitive Elvish?
(this was my first, never answered question in the Elfling list).
[I'm allowing this post, because it is instructive to consider these
mechanisms, but this is getting rather far afield, both from the original
topic and from Eldarin. I'd also like to ask Hans to repose his final
question in a separate post, with a new topic description. Carl]