tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post6988983297688277071..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: Is an active-stative or subjective-objective system more appropriate for earliest Common Proto-IEGlen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-73268042693631648182009-09-18T19:23:54.487-05:002009-09-18T19:23:54.487-05:00Ooops, just something more to add...
An excellen...Ooops, just something more to add... <br /><br />An excellent <a href="http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/sketch.html" rel="nofollow">primer on Nenets grammar provided by Tapani Salminen</a> explains that Nenets is, like my conception of PIE, a language opposing separate conjugations for subjective and objective. Unlike PIE however, it seems that the reflexive is separate from both subjective and Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-74578354733748597072009-09-18T19:16:01.752-05:002009-09-18T19:16:01.752-05:00Yes, in hindsight I think I now see to what you we...Yes, in hindsight I think I now see to what you were referring in your above-cited article (<a href="http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/docs/NewObsAncGrkVc.pdf" rel="nofollow">Carl Conrad, <i>New Observations on Voice in the Ancient Greek Verb</i> (19 Nov 2002) [pdf]</a>), particularly where it says "What the teacher of ancient Greek must understand and the student must learn is that the Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-11190974641565479962009-09-18T18:09:45.030-05:002009-09-18T18:09:45.030-05:00By "perfective" I mean the same thing as...By "perfective" I mean the same thing as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> -- viewing the action expressed by the verb root or stem as a whole. This has nothing to do with the PIE verbal category traditionally called "the perfect conjugation".<br /><br />While I understand that (for some odd reason) it's traditional PIE Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877359715103710249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-45976591347546086882009-09-10T18:53:19.342-05:002009-09-10T18:53:19.342-05:00As for the idea that "know" could come t...As for the idea that "know" could come to mean "see", check out stranger things in <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=BZNWJTqS0CAC&pg=PA295&dq=%22In+Russian,+the+link+between+the+lexemes+meaning%22" rel="nofollow">Vanhove, <i>From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations</i> (2008), p.295</a>: "In Russian, the link Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-39639998872624559392009-09-10T18:04:28.112-05:002009-09-10T18:04:28.112-05:00Rob: "From my own point of view, the evidence...<b>Rob: <i>"From my own point of view, the evidence is secure that <b>*weid-</b> had perfective semantics"</i></b><br /><br />But the perfective semantics are caused by it being sucked into the perfective category. That perfective category however isn't original since it can't explain the hi-class in Anatolian which use the exact same endings. People have tried, people have Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-4353010381136242382009-09-09T22:31:15.653-05:002009-09-09T22:31:15.653-05:00I consider the form *wid-éh1- to be ancient due to...I consider the form <b>*wid-éh1-</b> to be ancient due to its morphophonemics, namely the zero-grade ablaut of the root. While Latin, Greek, Balto-Slavic and Germanic may be in a (more or less) contiguous area today, that does not mean they were always so. Greek, at least, appears closer to Indo-Iranian than any other branch of IE.<br /><br />Again, I don't see how statives can be Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877359715103710249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-59983305281155612962009-09-03T16:19:35.639-05:002009-09-03T16:19:35.639-05:00By the way, for added perspective (or possibly add...By the way, for added perspective (or possibly added confusion), let's look at this. <i>The Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European world</i> (2006), on pages 321 & 322: "The second root, <b>*weid-</b>, indicates 'seeing' or 'knowing as a fact' rather than recognizing a person. It was essentially a perfect, <b>*wóide</b> 'have seen&#Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-43038387394477407812009-09-03T15:49:59.282-05:002009-09-03T15:49:59.282-05:00Rob: "Yet another thing - why would *weid- fo...<b>Rob: <i>"Yet another thing - why would *weid- form a characterized stative in *wid-éh1- if it's already inherently stative?"</i></b><br /><br />We find <b>*wid-eh1-</b> in Latin, Greek, Balto-Slavic and Germanic (<a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=T8qHGrkJyywC&pg=PA54&dq=wid-eh+stative" rel="nofollow">Penney/Davies, <i>Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-60718143767216104502009-09-02T22:27:29.217-05:002009-09-02T22:27:29.217-05:00Oops, I forgot to address your second and third pa...Oops, I forgot to address your second and third paragraphs! Here goes...<br /><br />With all due respect, I remain skeptical of your claim that <b>*h1es-</b> and <b>*weid-</b> were borrowed from a Semitic language. As your third paragraph depends on this hypothesis, I can't really address it.<br /><br />On the other hand, it does seem like we're not quite aligned when it comes to Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877359715103710249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-77541793095377513982009-09-02T19:46:18.968-05:002009-09-02T19:46:18.968-05:00Of course, with science, we can't be sure of a...Of course, with science, we can't be sure of anything. :P<br /><br />Cited there with Tocharian <i>ime</i> is Greek <i>idmo:n</i> "skillful", both presumably from <b>*widmén-</b>. I can't help but notice the similarity between this noun ending and the middle participle ending in <b>*-méno-</b>. An inherently stative meaning for <b>*weid-</b> wouldn't make much sense if it Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877359715103710249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-8841279897373350012009-09-01T17:53:22.684-05:002009-09-01T17:53:22.684-05:00Rob: "My point was that the stative semantics...<b>Rob: <i>"My point was that the stative semantics of *wóidh2e were comparatively (very) late in contrast to those of h1ésmi."</i></b><br /><br />How are you sure of that? Rather it looks like <b>*weid-</b> is a genuinely ancient stative considering <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=pH7emh7sv50C&pg=PA322&dq=%22It+too+supplies+a+number+of+other+words,+e.g.%22" rel="Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-17393793463546942122009-09-01T16:43:03.566-05:002009-09-01T16:43:03.566-05:00Although semantically "know" and "b...Although semantically "know" and "be" are both inherently stative, PIE did not treat them the same in a morphological sense. While <b>*h1es-</b> is a stative root, <b>*weid-</b> is not. My point was that the stative semantics of <b>*wóidh2e</b> were comparatively (very) late in contrast to those of <b>h1ésmi</b>. The earlier semantics of the former were decidedly not Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877359715103710249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-15035167306513076882009-08-31T23:57:35.000-05:002009-08-31T23:57:35.000-05:00Wait a minute, I guess in the case of "knowin...Wait a minute, I guess in the case of "knowing" I should have said that the patient-subject ("I") is a SUPERSET of the implicit agent ("brain") in "I know (through my brain)". Methinks I got mixed up. Oh my, speaking of brains, mine is being fried right now from all this grammar talk. Lol!Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-2596536193185579712009-08-31T22:43:41.990-05:002009-08-31T22:43:41.990-05:00Rob: "In this light, it's very ironic tha...<b>Rob: <i>"In this light, it's very ironic that you brought up *wóidh2e vs. *h1ésmi. If my suspicions are correct, then the proper semantics for the former are "I have seen (it) for myself". As for the latter, how can one be or exist for himself?"</i></b><br /><br />"Ironic"? But we seem to agree with the same thing. "Knowing" is subjective (the Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-7200777889704263422009-08-31T19:26:16.407-05:002009-08-31T19:26:16.407-05:00Hey Glen,
What intrigued me about that article wa...Hey Glen,<br /><br />What intrigued me about that article was the author's explanation of the semantics behind the Ancient Greek middle and its differences from the active. Basically, the middle is the <i>marked form</i> (vis-a-vis the active), specifying that the grammatical subject was somehow affected himself by the action.<br /><br />In this light, it's very ironic that you brought Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877359715103710249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-42071583290457443302009-08-31T15:11:07.800-05:002009-08-31T15:11:07.800-05:00Seadog Driftwood: '[...] do you think that PIE...<b>Seadog Driftwood: <i>'[...] do you think that PIE and Uralic go back to a common ancestor, PIE having been given an injection of North-West Caucasian words?"</i></b><br /><br />I'd be utterly shocked if PIE and Uralic weren't related at some point in the past. Too many coincidences. Allan Bomhard suggested NWC influence on early PIE in <i>Indo-European and the Nostratic Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-10911764416032049982009-08-31T15:00:28.184-05:002009-08-31T15:00:28.184-05:00Rob: "Can you explain what you think the conn...<b>Rob: <i>"Can you explain what you think the connection is between objective verbs and durative aspect, on the one hand, and between subjective verbs and punctual aspect, on the other?"</i></b><br /><br />This question made me think long and hard. After verifying the logic behind my statement, an intriguing paradox is uncovered: <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=pq04ipOVeAsC&Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-56039174422313937392009-08-31T11:31:18.738-05:002009-08-31T11:31:18.738-05:00"Core PIE". That's a very convenient..."Core PIE". That's a very convenient name! I usually call it "Classical PIE", but that's easily misunderstood.<br />I think I'll adopt your terminology for "Post-Anatolian-and-Tocharian-PIE" It's sensible!<br /><br />"...modern Uralic languages like Hungarian or Nenets" I appreciate that you've included label "modern", perhaps Casey Goransonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15515485425230479050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-60311659400709709132009-08-28T21:21:49.852-05:002009-08-28T21:21:49.852-05:00Can you explain what you think the connection is b...Can you explain what you think the connection is between objective verbs and durative aspect, on the one hand, and between subjective verbs and punctual aspect, on the other?<br /><br />On another note, I think that article I linked to actually holds the key to the Hittite -mi/-hi distinction. Have you looked at it yet?Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877359715103710249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-19995502569316590372009-08-27T23:03:18.791-05:002009-08-27T23:03:18.791-05:00Rob: "See e.g. stative verbs derived with the...<b>Rob: <i>"See e.g. stative verbs derived with the suffix *-eH1."</i></b><br /><br />Actually, it's precisely your example that we may better explain from my new perspective.<br /> <br />Let's start again more concisely: I'm suggesting here to throw away the "active/stative" model and to replace the word "active" with "objective", the word &Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-33532711603875930382009-08-27T22:20:48.174-05:002009-08-27T22:20:48.174-05:00I found the following article to be very tasty - y...I found the following article to be very tasty - you might agree: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/%7Ecwconrad/docs/NewObsAncGrkVc.pdfRobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877359715103710249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-76406450247022880402009-08-27T20:37:43.787-05:002009-08-27T20:37:43.787-05:00Hey Glen!
Maybe it's just me, but it seems li...Hey Glen!<br /><br />Maybe it's just me, but it seems like maybe the IE "perfect" verb form is really just a specialized kind of middle. I say this because IE apparently had plenty of stative verbs which were conjugated the same way as active verbs. See e.g. stative verbs derived with the suffix *-eH1.<br /><br />On another note, I've long considered the 1sg active thematic Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877359715103710249noreply@blogger.com