tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post8951804696585062199..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: Thoughts on the early Indo-European subjunctive 1ps endingGlen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-35221201342490608412009-08-09T16:17:39.404-05:002009-08-09T16:17:39.404-05:00Jarosch,
"I read Jasanoff, but he does not r...Jarosch,<br /><br /><b><i>"I read Jasanoff, but he does not read Jarosch; so automatically and normally, I know a lot more."</i></b><br /><br />Your conceit is limitless. These silly, unreferenced statements of yours show either that you're insistent on your ignorance or that you're a warped comic with an imaginary audience. Terms like "ovarial stem", "Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-62257553083305316132009-08-09T12:40:15.425-05:002009-08-09T12:40:15.425-05:00Thematic stems - aorist, present, noun - develop a...Thematic stems - aorist, present, noun - develop as follows: say there is a "false-friend"-paradigm, root bher 'to carry', reduplicative variant zero, of the form bh´er_bh r-´. bh´er is the strong alternant or "mother stem" x=0/y=1, bh r-´ is the weak alternant or "ovarial stem" x=0/y=0(the center of the system). Taking over the -e- from endings verbal -´ent J.Jaroschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12825866998185468694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-44999622971349235122009-08-09T06:56:27.599-05:002009-08-09T06:56:27.599-05:00Hi you guys, thank you for discussion. I appreciat...Hi you guys, thank you for discussion. I appreciate it.<br />Please proceed from the fact that I know Jasanoff by heart. I really admire him for his gigantic knowledge of languages. But whenever he draws conclusions in direction of PIE, he gets it terribly wrong. The reader's or observer's task is to put his conclusions in an order of "falseness": which is the falsest, which areJ.Jaroschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12825866998185468694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-26783589764113723932009-08-08T11:40:08.697-05:002009-08-08T11:40:08.697-05:00Phoenix: "You feel that any Indo-European aft...<b>Phoenix: <i>"You feel that any Indo-European after the Anatolian split was already [too] divergent in dialects to be able to speak of a non-anatolian Indo-european as a single entity?"</i></b><br /><br />Not exactly, but your question can only be answered with subjective opinion. In my opinion, it's next to impossible for "IE 2" (the non-Anatolian IE dialect area) to Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-14808963086971030222009-08-08T06:14:37.041-05:002009-08-08T06:14:37.041-05:00Thanks for the clarification.
So ironically, that...Thanks for the clarification.<br /><br /><i>So ironically, that "IE verb system" is not "IE" at all.</i><br /><br />This is what I keep on saying too. It's almost frustrating to see how hard people attempt to reconstruct stuff in non-Graeco-Aryan languages by using a clearly graeco-aryan model of the Indo-European verbal system.<br /><br />But let me just make clear that IPhoeniXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627425696035152752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-83652560432780689502009-08-07T17:25:40.423-05:002009-08-07T17:25:40.423-05:00"Surely it would be a stretch to try and reco...<b><i>"Surely it would be a stretch to try and reconstruct it for Pre-Hittite split PIE, but past that stage it becomes quite reconstructible doesn't it?</i></b><br /><br />Yes, we're in agreement on that but apparently not in agreement of what "Indo-European" itself means. To me, any grammatical model for Indo-European that completely ignores Anatolian and ignores "Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-11026736861604564362009-08-07T07:08:37.733-05:002009-08-07T07:08:37.733-05:00Just a quick question about the Dual. Surely it wo...Just a quick question about the Dual. Surely it would be a stretch to try and reconstruct it for Pre-Hittite split PIE, but past that stage it becomes quite reconstructible doesn't it?<br /><br />Skt -vas, Av. -vahi OCS -vě Lith. -va for the 1du do point to *-ue(s)<br />Just like sanskrit tom and gr -ton give 2du secondary *-tom<br /><br />Reconstructing the forms remains difficult, but I PhoeniXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627425696035152752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-25616014198510220042009-08-06T05:54:43.992-05:002009-08-06T05:54:43.992-05:00J.Jarosch: "Your comment on nominal endings i...<b><i>J.Jarosch: "Your comment on nominal endings is OK. No objections."</i></b><br /><br />Wunderbar.<br /><br /><b><i>"Together with the dual and the middle, we have 18 verbal endings."</i></b><br /><br />Dual number cannot and must not be reconstructed for PIE verbs:<br /><br /><b>A)</b> It's not attested in Anatolian at all.<br /><b>B)</b> Unlike the verbal dual, the <Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-27924968266442033212009-08-05T16:11:38.849-05:002009-08-05T16:11:38.849-05:00Your comment on nominal endings is OK. No objectio...Your comment on nominal endings is OK. No objections.<br />Together with the dual and the middle, we have 18 verbal endings. The majority of them is either unknown, or uncertain, or hypothetical, or incomplete. In the middle, the original secondary endings are 1sg h2e, 2sg th2e, 3sg e,3pl r. The additives that make them processed primary endings are i, i, i, and s (again!). Some of these endings J.Jaroschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12825866998185468694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-10525766925842484652009-08-02T06:40:53.096-05:002009-08-02T06:40:53.096-05:00I should expand further on this particular asserti...I should expand further on this particular assertion expressed above, at least for the benefit of other readers who appreciate facts:<br /><br /><b>Jarosch: <i>"There is no trace of a 'plural s' nor is there any hint of a connection with "ns" 'we'."</i></b><br /><br />Yet, beyond the fact that Sanskrit <i>-mas</i> and Latin <i>-mus</i> (both from none other Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-9829601266025671162009-08-01T05:55:47.486-05:002009-08-01T05:55:47.486-05:00"They are used in the aorist, injunctive and ...<b><i>"They are used in the aorist, injunctive and imperfect."</i></b><br /><br />Not exactly. In PIE proper, there was as yet no formalized "aorist" aspect distinct from an "imperfect/durative" one. They both employed the same endings, save that actions with aorist nuances coincidentally avoided <b>*-i</b>. Read Jasanoff, <i>Hittite and the Indo-European Verb</i> (Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-47530052843584778722009-07-31T19:28:06.281-05:002009-07-31T19:28:06.281-05:00In PIE, there is a set of endings called secondary...In PIE, there is a set of endings called secondary endings. These secondary endings are the original ones. They are used in the aorist, injunctive and imperfect. They are 1sg -m, 2sg -s, 3sg -t, 1pl me, 2pl. te, 3pl ent. There is no mood or demonstrativity in them. There is no trace of a "plural s" nor is there any hint of a connection with "ns" 'we'. Similarities withJ.Jaroschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12825866998185468694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-11691080605014246972009-07-26T01:35:07.437-05:002009-07-26T01:35:07.437-05:00Just realized a problem with another of Jarosch...Just realized a problem with another of Jarosch's statements: "So probably the whole cluster is <b>-o-m-h2, usually turning into -o-h2</b>, but in one-syllable stems into -o-m (lat. sum I am and not so^)." (bold emphasis my own)<br /><br />If it were true that 1ps thematic <b>**-omh2</b> in Pre-IE were simplified to <b>*-oh2</b>, Sihler's mention of a widely known PIE rule <a Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-62641011015690817032009-07-25T17:52:36.339-05:002009-07-25T17:52:36.339-05:00Jarosch clearly stated above: "For me, -h2 is...Jarosch clearly stated above: "For me, -h2 is not an ending, but the hic-et-nunc-marker. There are three of them, and in thematic stems, the distibrution is 1sg h2, 2sg i, 3sg i, 1pl s, 2pl h2 (again!) and 3pl i."<br /><br />If he is stating that three different particles were employed to indicate a single mood, his solution is already a failure.<br /><br />For starters, these particlesGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-16698561092849835412009-07-25T06:16:54.569-05:002009-07-25T06:16:54.569-05:00you imply a source from three "hic-et-nunc pa...<i>you imply a source from three "hic-et-nunc particles" (presumably *h₂o-, *so- and *i-) by pure whim and treat it like the panacea we're all looking for without bothering to explain in acceptable linguistic terms how the very distribution of these endings would have evolved into PIE in the first place! Your proposed system is not grammatically and semantically coherent.</i><br /><PhoeniXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627425696035152752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-50887048398662784112009-07-24T14:50:22.479-05:002009-07-24T14:50:22.479-05:00To add to my previous comment...
This blog entry ...To add to my previous comment...<br /><br />This blog entry was made in 2007, but I've made more recent contributions which may clarify the diachronic developments I envision for Pre-IE back a few thousand years.<br /><br />Read <a href="http://paleoglot.blogspot.com/2008/10/trouble-with-pie-1st-2nd-person-plural_31.html" rel="nofollow">Paleoglot: <i>The trouble with the PIE 1st & 2nd Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-35491680640749863962009-07-23T01:25:42.540-05:002009-07-23T01:25:42.540-05:00J. Jarosch,
A solution that explains the obscure ...J. Jarosch,<br /><br />A solution that explains the obscure with more obscurity is a waste of time. In this case, you <br />imply a source from three "hic-et-nunc particles" (presumably <b>*h₂o-</b>, <b>*so-</b> and <b>*i-</b>) by pure whim and treat it like the panacea we're all looking for without bothering to explain in acceptable linguistic terms how the very distribution of Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-67045924719013250832009-07-22T08:06:56.999-05:002009-07-22T08:06:56.999-05:00Hello, my name is Josef Jarosch and if you are int...Hello, my name is Josef Jarosch and if you are interested in my thinking and especially in my publications you should try www.josef-j-jarosch.de.<br />I read your thoughts about the thematic first person singular ending with interest. For me, -h2 is not an ending, but the hic-et-nunc-marker. There are three of them, and in thematic stems, the distibrution is 1sg h2, 2sg i, 3sg i, 1pl s, 2pl h2 (J.Jaroschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12825866998185468694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-82580276387624144412007-08-03T06:38:00.000-05:002007-08-03T06:38:00.000-05:00First of all, thanks for being so kind for reading...First of all, thanks for being so kind for reading my blog.<BR/><BR/>Speaking of the -s- and -sk- suffixes. Tocharian B uses them a lot (I bet you can tell which class I followed last year by now :P).<BR/><BR/>The s-e suffix performs no special function in Tocharian; it's simply a present suffix. <BR/><BR/>The sk-e suffix is different though. First it's use as a present marker. It's also used in Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-27173707030984281622007-08-02T18:50:00.000-05:002007-08-02T18:50:00.000-05:00Oh dear goddess. I should just make another blog ;...Oh dear goddess. I should just make another blog ;) Have fun with my data dump. You asked for it.<BR/><BR/><B>phoenix: <I>"It can't be said that hhi is typically intransitive, but it does have the tendency."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Yes, I'm aware which is why I didn't commit to the literal idea of an intransitive-transitive system in PIE and used the word "transitivish". A subjective-objective system (Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-3781688101401278542007-08-02T15:30:00.000-05:002007-08-02T15:30:00.000-05:00Continuing on the idea of transitivish vs intransi...Continuing on the idea of transitivish vs intransitivish, there's actually some proof for this in Anatolian. Though sparse.<BR/><BR/>It can't be said that hhi is typically intransitive, but it does have the tendency. What's also interesting is that there's two types of derivations of verbs.<BR/><BR/>First there's the causatives (To make ....), second the fientives (to become .... )<BR/><BR/>for Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-71079300881196879672007-08-02T13:49:00.000-05:002007-08-02T13:49:00.000-05:00Hey, welcome back, Phoenix!It's always tempting to...Hey, welcome back, Phoenix!<BR/><BR/>It's always tempting to assume that everything in an older branch such as Anatolian is an archaicism but naturally that can't logically be the case. Even Anatolian has innovated, surely. I don't know of a language that doesn't innovate. The question is <I>what</I> has it changed in the original system and what <I>was</I> the original system.<BR/><BR/>Ever Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-7446077080854543592007-08-01T20:50:00.000-05:002007-08-01T20:50:00.000-05:00Hi, I've been following your blog ever since I ran...Hi, I've been following your blog ever since I ran into your last entry on the PIE subjunctive. Once again your theory seems to be correct.<BR/><BR/>The bit on -h2+i also seems to be correct, although Anatolian languages clearly reflect -h2i as an ending (as -hhi), which make it seems a bit suspicious in my eyes, but on the other hand, it seems plausible that this is an Anatolian innovation, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-49399956251198464362007-07-18T02:53:00.000-05:002007-07-18T02:53:00.000-05:00I'm recruiting hosts for the Four Stone Hearth. Pl...I'm recruiting hosts for the Four Stone Hearth. Please e-mail me!Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05799391349111994914noreply@blogger.com