>it is quite common for perfective to be unmarked,
>and in languages without tense, but with aspect, the perfective
>is typically used to denote the past, at least for non-stative
>verbs. Classical Arabic is generally said to fall in this
>group

I am sure that any problem is mine, or my confusion -- or else things have
been so redefined that the sentence "the past is never unmarked"  no longer
means that past tenses are never unmarked.

It was indeed languages such as classical Arabic,or Biblical Hebrew, that I
was thinking of (which is why I refered to them).   You'll also have noted
my careful wording : I said "the form which is used for the unmarked past".
I think it is only by semantic sleight-of-hand that a linguist can make
these languages have always-marked past tenses.  The past is often indicated
by an adverb or some such,  but it is also often not indicated, so that the
original perfective functions as an umarked past.  The present is always
marked by inflection.  But no doubt I have misunderstood something.

Peter

On 2006-07-30 02:02, raonath wrote:

> Resurrecting an old thread, the idea that bhereti type is subjunctive
> reinterpreted as present would seem to require that the PIE
> subjunctive used primary endings. How do we then explain the
> pculiar mix of primary and secondary endings in the RV
> active subjunctive (RV middle to Brahmana middle subjunctive
> seems even weirder, that presumably is not relevant to this
> question)?

The tenseless (non-reporting) "injunctive" form *bHer-e-t is all that we
need as the pivot of the change. With the appropriate tense markers it
becomes a present (*bHer-e-t-i) or an imperfect (*e bHer-e-t).

Piotr

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
<akonushevci@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Alvin Ekmekciu" <a96_aeu@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Abdullah !
> >
> > Have you ever considered that Albanian <midhje> 'mussel' might
be a
> > Greek loan <ΜΎΔΙ> ?
> >
> > In your "Albanian inherited lexicon" you write:
> >
> > <midhje> `mussel' probably from extended form *mu:sd-eH2: Lat
> > mu:sculus (Pokorny mu:s – 752.)
> >
> > Alvin
> ************
> Dear Alvin,
> Old Greek form for "mussel" is <miaks, -akos> (see Pokorny mu:s -
> 752), but New Greek form is <to midhi>, that easy could be a loan
> from Albanian.
> I don't know did you have this in mind, for word you have written
> cannt be read.
>
> Konushevci

Hello Abdullah, yes I had written that word in Greek letters.

Do you see any relation to the other Albanian word
<stridhë> 'oyster', Greek <streidhi>.

It would also be interesting to know the etymology of Albanian
<oklonjë> 'nautilus'.

Regards
Alvin

I've propagated this idea before,
I've added a few details now.

Leaving the plain velars aside, which I think occur
only in loans, PIE has

palatal velars, /k^/ etc, supposedly
-> /s/ etc in satem languages,
-> /k/ etc in kentum languages

labiovelars, /kW/ etc, supposedly
-> /k/ etc in satem languages,
-> /kW/ etc in kentum languages


My idea was that the /k^/'s and /kW/'s had
allophones in PIE, one before front vowel,
another in other positions, and that the
first of these allophones was generalised
in satem languages, the other in kentum
languages.

Thus,
the supposed traditional /k^/'s had
the allophones, say, /c^/ and /k/, and
the supposed traditional /kW/'s had
the allophones, say, /k/ and /kW/.

Especially the thematic inflection, with its
alternating thematic vowel /e/ vs. /o/
would cause stems to alternate on the
final consonant.

I had the further idea some of that PIE
alternation might have survived in Slavic;
the traditional explanation is that it
was caused much later by subsequent
Slavic palatalizations.

Ex. of (P)PIE alternation *k/*kW:

1st sg. *pakWám
3rd sg. *pakWát

->

*päkWã´
*päkWä´t

->

*pekWõ´
*peke´t

-> (Russian)

*pekú
*pec^ët


As for the PIE *c^/*k alternation, that
worried me, but then I noticed something:

1st sg *pi:kam
3rd sg *pi:kat

->

*peikã
*peikät

->

*peikõ
*peic^et

->

*pis^u
*piset

which is not quite Russian, since the
3rd sg there is pis^et. But the "second
stem", that of inf. and pret. is pisa-
with an /s/, so I assume the /s^/ of
3rd sg etc is analogous?

Please object.


Torsten

***HOW TO BEHAVE ON CYBALIST***

Moderatorial Recommendations and Rules of Proper Conduct

The purpose of Cybalist is to popularise Indo-European studies and to provide a
discussion forum for people who are interested in the various linguistic,
cultural and historical aspects of IE scholarship.

Cybalist is not moderated in the strict technical sense: the moderators do not
have to see all the messages before they are posted to the members. However, as
an elementary precaution against Internet hooligans and spammers, new members
remain moderated until they start posting regularly. A 'moderated' message has
to wait for approval, which may take from a few minutes to a few hours. It may
also be rejected by a moderator if it violates our rules of proper conduct (see
below).

Our primary duty as list managers is to maintain a decent level of discussion
and to make sure that out debates are conducted in a civil manner. We reserve
the right to judge whether your postings are conducive to that purpose or not.
If we find that a particular poster's behaviour is wilfully counterproductive,
we shall react by issuing a warning off-list. If the warning has no effect, we
can restrict the poster's privileges by changing his or her status to
'moderated' for about two weeks. Recidivists may expect a longer probation
period. Since the public discussion of administrative and disciplinary problems
on Cybalist would cause undesirable distraction, any complaints, concerns or
suggestions regarding such matters should be sent to us off-list. Should anyone
prefer a public discussion of them, we have established a separate forum called
Cybalist_admin,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist_admin/

where you can speak your mind freely before all the moderators and before
anybody alse who wishes to join that list.

----------

DON'T DO IT

Here is a list of things that are explicitly forbidden on Cybalist. Infraction
will result in disciplinary action on the moderators' part, from off-list
notification to immediate removal from Cybalist, depending on the seriousness of
the offence. It is recommended that Cybalist members should save this list for
future reference.

(1) Spam

Anyone caught spamming (that is, posting off-topic commercial advertisements or
other unwanted junk) will be removed from Cybalist without warning.

(2) Off-topic postings and pseudoscience

Since this list is devoted to Indo-European studies, the discussion of
extraneous or too general topics (e.g. other language families, the origin of
language, long-range comparison etc.) will be discouraged. There are other lists
where subjects like general linguistic, Nostratic studies, anthropology, etc.,
may be discussed more profitably. We assume that there is a nearly unanimous
consensus among the list's managers and regular posters as to what should and
what should not be discussed. While the discussion of controversial issues is
welcome on the list, there are certain limits that we should like to be
observed. In particular, we will not encourage the pursuit of pseudoscience, by
which we understand, for example, amateurish decipherments of ancient scripts,
racist theories, speculation about the language spoken in Atlantis or in the
Garden of Eden, demonstrations that Latvian and Sumerian are practically the
same language, or anything else that sinks below the level at which serious
discussion is possible.

(3) Idées fixes

Please do not treat Cybalist as your private forum. Posters who attempt to
publicise their private obsessions had better look for some other audience.
Anyone who tries to dominate the discussion by sending an immoderate number of
messages on a single topic may expect hear from the moderators off-list. In the
interest of the group we may shut down a tired thread. In such cases, if you
want to protest or ask the moderators to re-open the thread, please get in touch
with one of us off-list or write to Cybalist_admin.

(4) Flaming, trolling and ad hominem attacks

Please avoid deliberate rudeness, aggressive language, addressing the
personalities of other members rather than their arguments, and other forms of
disruptive behaviour. Posters who seem to enjoy irritating other participants or
provoking violent exchanges will be given time out at short notice: their
posting rights may be revoked for about two weeks. If you feel provoked or
insulted by somebody else, please don't hesitate to complain to the moderators
(privately or on Cybalist_admin) rather than repay insults in kind.

(5) Flogging dead horses and reviving banned threads

We also wish to discourage attempts to resurrect a closed thread if the poster
has no fresh ideas to contribute. The list archive is searchable, and before you
raise a topic you should at least try to check if it has not been discussed in
the past months. If we find a thread objectionable and announce its termination,
any posters who want to post their final thoughts on it may do so within 24
hours. After that time, any attempt to revive a banned thread within two weeks
of its termination may be punished with a brief (one or two weeks) restriction
of the offender's posting rights.

----------

TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) Post plain-text messages rather than HTML. Fancy backgrounds, colours and
fonts are dispensable.

(2) To minimise readability problems, use 'West European' encoding (that is, the
'Latin-1' or ISO-8859-1 character set) whenever possible. If you find it
necessary to use something more sophisticated (e.g. UTF-8), do so sparingly and
don't forget to warn the list.

(3) Avoid sending attachments with your postings. Any pictures, Word or PDF
documents, etc. that you'd like to share with other list members should be
uploaded to the Files area instead. Please remember that copyrighted materials
have to be handled without breaking the legal restrictions on their fair use.
When in doubt, consult the moderators.

(4) When responding to others' postings, quote only those fragments of the
original message that you want to reply to. In particular, do not quote whole
threads. Make sure that the quotations are properly marked, so that one can
easily see who wrote what.

(5) If your reply drifts away from the original topic, change the subject line
(e.g. 'IE loanwords in Hurrian [was: The Indo-Iranian homeland]').

The above prohibitions and recommendations are tentative and may evolve further.
We will keep you informed if we decide to modify them in the future.

Piotr Gasiorowski

On 2006-08-02 10:36, tgpedersen wrote:

> *peikõ
> *peic^et
>
> ->
>
> *pis^u
> *piset
>
> which is not quite Russian, since the
> 3rd sg there is pis^et. But the "second
> stem", that of inf. and pret. is pisa-
> with an /s/, so I assume the /s^/ of
> 3rd sg etc is analogous?
>
> Please object.

If you insist...

The s ~ s^ alternation in Slavic (as in Russ. pisát' 'to write' :
pís^et) results from the fact thet the verbs in this conjugation had
present stems in *-je/o-, and *-sj- yields Slavic /s^/ whatever the
origin of the *s. We have exactly the same alternation in roots ending
in inherited PIE *s, e.g. Russ. c^esát' 'to comb' : c^és^et (PIE *kes-).

The 'cook' root was conjugated differently, like Skt. pácati <
*pékW-e-ti (the simple thematic type). Here the PSl. infinitive was
*pek-ti > OCS pes^ti, Russ. pec^, Pol. piec, and the present was 1sg.
*pek-oN, 3.sg. *pec^-etI (Russ. pekú, pec^ët). Of course there were also
roots ending in *k(W) that formed *-je/o- present stems. In those cases
we have infinitives ending in *-k-ati with presents that have *c^ <
*-k(W)j- across the paradigm, e.g. Russ. plákat' 'weep' : plác^u, plác^et.

Piotr

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> On 2006-08-02 10:36, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > *peikõ
> > *peic^et
> >
> > ->
> >
> > *pis^u
> > *piset
> >
> > which is not quite Russian, since the
> > 3rd sg there is pis^et. But the "second
> > stem", that of inf. and pret. is pisa-
> > with an /s/, so I assume the /s^/ of
> > 3rd sg etc is analogous?
> >
> > Please object.
>
> If you insist...
>
> The s ~ s^ alternation in Slavic (as in Russ. pisát' 'to write' :
> pís^et) results from the fact thet the verbs in this
> conjugation had present stems in *-je/o-, and *-sj-
> yields Slavic /s^/ whatever the origin of the *s. We have
> exactly the same alternation in roots ending in inherited
> PIE *s, e.g. Russ. c^esát' 'to comb' : c^és^et (PIE *kes-).
>

Does the -j- appear tangibly in any Slavic representative
of that paradigm, or only as palatalization of the preceding
consonant?



> The 'cook' root was conjugated differently, like Skt. pácati <
> *pékW-e-ti (the simple thematic type). Here the PSl.
> infinitive was *pek-ti > OCS pes^ti, Russ. pec^, Pol. piec,
> and the present was 1sg. *pek-oN, 3.sg. *pec^-etI (Russ.
> pekú, pec^ët). Of course there were also roots ending in
> *k(W) that formed *-je/o- present stems. In those cases
> we have infinitives ending in *-k-ati with presents that
> have *c^ < *-k(W)j- across the paradigm, e.g. Russ.
> plákat' 'weep' : plác^u, plác^et.

And ditto?


Torsten

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> On 2006-08-02 10:36, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > *peikõ
> > *peic^et
> >
> > ->
> >
> > *pis^u
> > *piset
> >
> > which is not quite Russian, since the
> > 3rd sg there is pis^et. But the "second
> > stem", that of inf. and pret. is pisa-
> > with an /s/, so I assume the /s^/ of
> > 3rd sg etc is analogous?
> >
> > Please object.
>
> If you insist...
>
> The s ~ s^ alternation in Slavic (as in Russ. pisát' 'to write' :
> pís^et) results from the fact thet the verbs in this
> conjugation had present stems in *-je/o-, and *-sj-
> yields Slavic /s^/ whatever the origin of the *s. We have
> exactly the same alternation in roots ending in inherited
> PIE *s, e.g. Russ. c^esát' 'to comb' : c^és^et (PIE *kes-).
>

Does the -j- appear tangibly in any Slavic representative
of that paradigm, or only as palatalization of the preceding
consonant?

> The 'cook' root was conjugated differently, like Skt. pácati <
> *pékW-e-ti (the simple thematic type). Here the PSl.
> infinitive was *pek-ti > OCS pes^ti, Russ. pec^, Pol. piec,
> and the present was 1sg. *pek-oN, 3.sg. *pec^-etI (Russ.
> pekú, pec^ët). Of course there were also roots ending in
> *k(W) that formed *-je/o- present stems. In those cases
> we have infinitives ending in *-k-ati with presents that
> have *c^ < *-k(W)j- across the paradigm, e.g. Russ.
> plákat' 'weep' : plác^u, plác^et.

And ditto?

Torsten

r, syllabic  r
r. retroflex r
R  voiceless r
T  voiceless interdental fricative
G  voiced velar fricative

   I suspected the existence of a retroflex series of
consonants in PIE because of positions where *er
existed instead of expected *r, such as *peter "wing,
feather" and *gWertí- "act of consumption".  The
solution was *t./d. > R/r after a vowel except when
syllable structure wouldn't allow it.  Therefore:

d.ód.u (as dhódhn^ "milk")
d.ór.u
wood

pet!et.   pt!e-t.n,g-
pet!eR.   pt!e-t.n,g- (V-rn, not allowed)
wing, feather

gWet.-       mut.-  bHót.ó-
gWeR.-       muR.-  bHóR.ó-
be swallowed die    burden

   Attempting to confirm this, I looked for evidence
where supposed *d occurred as r or dr in some
languages (pointing to *d. instead).  I found various
examples, some shown below:

d.ód.u and d.ed.nom >
d.ór.u and d.end.om >
d.ór.u and d.end.om > dan.d.a-"staff,rod, etc." Skt
d.ór.u and d.end.om > déndron "tree, etc." Gk

pt!e-t.n,g- > pataga- Skt
pt!e-t.n,g- > ptérug- Gl

   Greek has further changes of *t./d. > r after/before
nasals; whatever the other environment.

   In Armenian *(d. > dz. before V initially) with
other regular changes applying (and sometimes
dissimilation).

   In the eastern languages *(d. > dr. before V
initially) with other regular changes applying (and
sometimes dissimilation).

   In the western languages nearly the opposite with R.
> t. and R. > r.t in Celtic and Germanic in some
positions (with other regular changes applying).

d.ód.u
d.ór.u
dr.ór.u
r.ór.u
ór.u       (dissimilation)
aru
oru
or   Tocharian

d.usmene:s
dr.usmene:s
etc.
Druhmin
lruhmin   Bactrian "enemy"

d.us
d.us.
dz.us.
dz.uz.
duz.    (dissimilation)
duG
tuG
tu:
tu
t&-   Western Armenian "not"

d.ód.u
d.ór.u
dz.ór.u
dz.ór.u+n
ts.ór.un
tsórun
tsarun
tsarn
tsaRn
tsaR   Western Armenian "tree"

mut.
muR.
mur.t
mwr,t
mr,t
mur.t
mur.tH
mur.T
mor.T  Proto-Germanic








__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

On 2006-08-02 21:15, tgpedersen wrote:

> Does the -j- appear tangibly in any Slavic representative
> of that paradigm, or only as palatalization of the preceding
> consonant?

The sequences *-rj-, *-lj-, *-nj-, *-Vj- remained unchanged in that
paradigm (Leskien's 3rd conjugation); the contrast between *-r-je- and
*-r-e- etc. is directly visible in OCS. Combinations of labials with
suffixal *j were retained as well and, dialectally, a lateral segment
could be epenthesised: -p(l)j-, *-b(l)j-, *-v(l)j-, *-m(l)j-. The
special developments of *-tj- and *-dj- also differentiate these PSl.
clusters from all late dialectal palatalisations of dental stops before
front vowels:

PSl. *tj, *dj >  OCS, Bulg. s^t, z^d, West Slavic c, 3, Russ., Ukr. c^,
z^, Srb./Cr. c', 3'.

To sum up, the *-j- is tangible in many contexts.

Piotr

On 2006-08-03 02:39, Joao S. Lopes wrote:

> Jaan Puhvel explained Solar Russian God Daz^bog < Daz^dIbogU <
*Da:dhi-bhagos "Give Fortune",

Russ. daz^(I) cannot be derived directly from *doh3-dHi, but reflects
the Slavic imperative *dadjI. The "regularly expected" PIE athematic
imperative *d(o)h3-dHi, by the way, is not attested (or rather
conspicuous by its absence) even in Vedic or Greek, and it seems certain
that the 2sg. aorist injunctive *doh3-s was used in its stead already in
PIE. Daz^bog's name certainly means 'give-wealth' (PSl. *dadjI-bogU); in
Slavic compounds with a verbal first member, the verb form came to be
interpreted as an imperative governing the second member. This type od
structure isn't characteristic of PIE compounds, so I wouldn't push the
reconstruction beyond Proto-Slavic.

> Which is the current analysis of vasu-?

*h1wé:su (*h1wésw-) 'good'.

Piotr

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2006-08-02 21:15, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Does the -j- appear tangibly in any Slavic representative
> > of that paradigm, or only as palatalization of the preceding
> > consonant?
>
> The sequences *-rj-, *-lj-, *-nj-, *-Vj- remained unchanged
> in that paradigm (Leskien's 3rd conjugation); the contrast
> between *-r-je- and *-r-e- etc. is directly visible in OCS.
> Combinations of labials with suffixal *j were retained as
> well and, dialectally, a lateral segment could be
> epenthesised: -p(l)j-, *-b(l)j-, *-v(l)j-, *-m(l)j-. The
> special developments of *-tj- and *-dj- also differentiate
> these PSl. clusters from all late dialectal palatalisations
> of dental stops before
> front vowels:
>
> PSl. *tj, *dj >
> OCS, Bulg. s^t, z^d,
> West Slavic c, 3,
> Russ., Ukr. c^, z^,
> Srb./Cr. c', 3'.
>

But we were talking about *sj -> s^. Does it occur in the
same rule?


> To sum up, the *-j- is tangible in many contexts.


Torsten

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
>
> Question: So if kentum/satem are built-in, does that
> presuppose an entire dichotomy of palatal/velar stops
> (and maybe others)?

Labiovelar/velar and velar/palatal.
That was my idea, but it seems to be a hard sell;-)
It would explain the whole centum/satem split-up
much easier.


> If so, would IE look closer to Salvic and Celtic?

Slavic, yes. I don't know much about Celtic, so I'll
take your word for it.


Torsten

On 2006-08-03 02:39, Joao S. Lopes wrote:

>
> Which is the current analysis of vasu-?

*h1wé:su (*h1wésw-) 'good'.

Piotr

On 2006-08-03 15:07, tgpedersen wrote:

> But we were talking about *sj -> s^. Does it occur in the same rule?

Yes. *s (of any origin) and *x (usually from *s in RUKI contexts)
yield *s^ when followed by *j, and *z (from *g^(H)) yields *z^ in the
same position. This is visible not only before the *-je- forming
present stems in Leskien's Class III (*pis^oN 'I write', *veNz^oN 'I
bind', etc.) but e.g. in Class IV (i-stem verbs), where stem-final *i
alternates with asyllabic *j found in prevocalic positions, i.e. in
the 1sg. and 3pl.:

OCS voziti 'transport'

voz^oN
vozis^i
vozitU

vozimU
vozite
voz^oNtU


OCS prositi 'ask'

pros^oN
prosis^i
prositU

prosimU
prosite
pros^oNtU

The same of course happens whenever comparative or internal evidence
points to *sj etc., for example in the root *sjuh1- 'sow' (Slavic
*s^iti < *sju:ti:), or in *dus^a 'soul' < *dHous-j-ah2 (cf. duxU
'ghost, spirit' < *dHous-o-s).

Piotr

Greek eao:n < *wesawo- ?

Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@....edu.pl> escreveu:

On 2006-08-03 02:39, Joao S. Lopes wrote:

>
> Which is the current analysis of vasu-?

*h1wé:su (*h1wésw-) 'good'.

Piotr

---

Yahoo! Search
Música para ver e ouvir: You're Beautiful, do James Blunt

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> voz^oNtU

vozeNtU (< *-in-)

> pros^oNtU

proseNtU

Sergei

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@> wrote:
>
> > voz^oNtU
>
> vozeNtU (< *-in-)
>
> > pros^oNtU
>
> proseNtU
>
> Sergei
>

Oops! It's a case of grammatical transfer my native Polish (<woz.a,>,
<nosza,>). I wonder which variant is older within Slavic (neither is
the direct reflex of PIE *-ejo-nti).

Piotr

On 2006-08-03 16:00, Joao S. Lopes wrote:

> Is there any explanation for why varn.a (caste) has this retroflex R ?
>
> Why not varna?

The so-called "nati" rule in Sanskrit makes any /n/ retroflex if
preceded by /r/ (also syllabic /r./) or /s./. The rule is non-local,
which means that it doesn't even require the nasal to be contiguous
with the segment that causes the retroflexion, as in <pra-n.aya->
'leader' (where even the morphological boundary doesn't block the
rule) and <bra:hman.a->. There is, however, no retroflexion if the /n/
is immediately followed by a dental stop, or if /l/ or any coronal
(dental, palatal or retroflex) stop or nasal intervenes between the
/r, r., s./ and the /n/.

Piotr

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2006-08-03 15:07, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > But we were talking about *sj -> s^. Does it occur in the same rule?
>
> Yes. *s (of any origin) and *x (usually from *s in RUKI contexts)
> yield *s^ when followed by *j, and *z (from *g^(H)) yields *z^ in the
> same position. This is visible not only before the *-je- forming
> present stems in Leskien's Class III (*pis^oN 'I write', *veNz^oN 'I
> bind', etc.) but e.g. in Class IV (i-stem verbs), where stem-final *i
> alternates with asyllabic *j found in prevocalic positions, i.e. in
> the 1sg. and 3pl.:
>
> OCS voziti 'transport'
>
> voz^oN
> vozis^i
> vozitU
>
> vozimU
> vozite
> voz^oNtU
>
>
> OCS prositi 'ask'
>
> pros^oN
> prosis^i
> prositU
>
> prosimU
> prosite
> pros^oNtU
>

Now suppose I claim

PPIE
1 sg *prakam
3 sg *prakat

->
PIE
*prokõ
*proc^it
(with ablaut vowel -> i)

->

*pros^õ
*prosit

How should that be refuted then?


Torsten

On 2006-08-03 16:29, Joao S. Lopes wrote:

> Could Greek eu- good, be a merging of *h1esu- and *h1we:su- ?

Or, to be more precise, *h1sú- and *h1wésu-. It could, though there
are no unambiguous traces of the expected digamma. In a few words
Greek seems to have a reflex of laryngeal-less *su- (the
simplification probably took place already in PIE before a heavy
syllable). My personal suspicion is that PIE *h1sú- represents an
irregular compositional reduction (the "weak form") of *h1wé(:)su-, so
the two roots are ultimately the same.

Piotr

-On 2006-08-03 17:22, tgpedersen wrote:

>
> Now suppose I claim
>
> PPIE
> 1 sg *prakam
> 3 sg *prakat
>
> -> PIE
> *prokõ
> *proc^it
> (with ablaut vowel -> i)
>
> ->
>
> *pros^õ
> *prosit
>
> How should that be refuted then?

The ablaut vowel _never_ becomes Slavic *i (normally reflecting older
*i: or *ei). Cf. the *bHéreti pattern (Slavic *beroN, *beretI; *pekoN,
pec^etI). The particular formation of *prositi reflects the PIE
causative/iterative in *-eje/o- (*prok^-ejo:, *prok^-éjeti), with the
somewhat irregular "smoothing out" of the suffix to *-jo-/*-i:-. It's
particularly instructive to compare some simple thematic presents with
the related causatives/iteratives:

PIE *h1nék^-e/o-, Slavic *nes-ti 'carry'

1sg. *nesoN, 3sg. *nesetI

PIE *(h1)nok^-éje/o-, Slavic nos-i-ti (iter.)

1sg. *nos^oN (with *s^ < *-s-j-), 3sg. *nositI

(this immediately refutes your suggestion)

or

PIE *wég^H-e/o-, Slavic *vez-ti 'transport'

1sg. *vezoN, 3sg. *vezetI

PIE *wog^H-éje/o-, Slavic *voz-i-ti (iter.)

1sg. *voz^oN (with *z^ < *-z-j-), 3sg. vozitI

Piotr

On 2006-08-03 16:29, Joao S. Lopes wrote:

> Could Greek eu- good, be a merging of *h1esu- and *h1we:su- ?

Or, to be more precise, *h1sú- and *h1wésu-. It could, though there
are no unambiguous traces of the expected digamma. In a few words
Greek seems to have a reflex of laryngeal-less *su- (the
simplification probably took place already in PIE before a heavy
syllable). My personal suspicion is that PIE *h1sú- represents an
irregular compositional reduction (the "weak form") of *h1wé(:)su-, so
the two roots are ultimately the same.

Piotr

> The particular formation of *prositi reflects the PIE
> causative/iterative in *-eje/o- (*prok^-ejo:, *prok^-éjeti),
> with the somewhat irregular "smoothing out" of the suffix
> to *-jo-/*-i:-. It's particularly instructive to compare
> some simple thematic presents with the related
> causatives/iteratives:
>
> PIE *h1nék^-e/o-, Slavic *nes-ti 'carry'
>
> 1sg. *nesoN, 3sg. *nesetI
>
> PIE *(h1)nok^-éje/o-, Slavic nos-i-ti (iter.)
>
> 1sg. *nos^oN (with *s^ < *-s-j-), 3sg. *nositI
>
> (this immediately refutes your suggestion)
>

I stand instructed.

So, let me see if I got this straight:

The causative suffix *-ejo-/*-eje- assumes the special
form *-jo-/*-i:-, of which the first has an initial -j-,
the second doesn't, which combine with a preceding -s-,
here from -k^-, to form -s^- and -s-, respectively
which immediately refutes my suggestion.


Does this happen also after a stem in final PIE -s-?


Torsten

On 2006-08-03 20:32, tgpedersen wrote:

> I stand instructed.
>
> So, let me see if I got this straight:
>
> The causative suffix *-ejo-/*-eje- assumes the special
> form *-jo-/*-i:-, of which the first has an initial -j-,
> the second doesn't, which combine with a preceding -s-, here from
-k^-, to form -s^- and -s-, respectively
> which immediately refutes my suggestion.

What refutes your suggestion is rather the fact that there's no *s^ :
*s alternation before the thematic vowel *-e/o-, where *k^ and *g^(H)
are invariably reflected as *s/*z (as in *nesoN, *nesetI) irrespective
of the quality of the vowel, whereas *k/g and *kW/*gW become Slavic
*k/g before *-o- but *c^/z^ before *-e- (*pekoN, *pec^etI). And just
to clarify: in simple thematic presents, as well as *-je/o- stems, the
thematic vowel is simply retained in Slavic with its original PIE quality.

> Does this happen also after a stem in final PIE -s-?

Yes, of course, as in *gasiti 'extinguish, put out' (Lith. ge`sti,
Skt. ja:sayati): *gas^oN, *gasitI. It's only in RUKI positions that we
get invariable *s^, because its alternant *x occurred only before back
vowels.

Piotr

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@...> wrote:

>
> So, would this alternation point to *h1Wesu-/h1Wsu- ?
>

I wouldn't say so. It's quite imaginable that *h1wesu- was reduced to
*h1su- (and even further to *su- in some positions). It would hardly
be economic to posit a special labialised phoneme in PIE or pre-PIE
just to account for a single alternation (even if the attested
reflexes could plausibly be derived from such a segment, which may be
doubted). The term for 'good/well' must have been one of the most
common compositional elements in PIE, and frequency of use is a factor
favouring irregular phonetic reduction.

Piotr

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@...> wrote:

>
> So, would this alternation point to *h1Wesu-/h1Wsu- ?
>

I wouldn't say so. It's quite imaginable that *h1wesu- was reduced to
*h1su- (and even further to *su- in some positions). It would hardly
be economic to posit a special labialised phoneme in PIE or pre-PIE
just to account for a single alternation (even if the attested
reflexes could plausibly be derived from such a segment, which may be
doubted). The term for 'good/well' must have been one of the most
common compositional elements in PIE, and frequency of use is a factor
favouring irregular phonetic reduction.

Piotr

On 2006-08-04 00:32, Joao S. Lopes wrote:

> Reduced form of *h1wesu- would be *h1usu-, wouldn't it?

The fundamental vocalism of this adjective is long, *h1wé:su-, and
*h1wésu- is already the weak counterpart thereof. Any further reduction
is only possible in some special circumstances and need not be fully
regular. The full form of a morpheme may easily shrink beyond ordinary
ablaut reduction in the formation of compounds (many examples have been
discussed on this list); such extra shrinkage may also result in the
simplification of consonant clusters (cf. Gk. déspoina < *dems potnih2
or even ultimately something like *demh2-s pot-h1-nt-ih2), so
compositional reduction like *h1wesu- > *h1(e)su- > *(h1)su- is hardly
odd.

Piotr