The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread's Sequel

[Zju]

I did say it's the one about root structure constraints - how *TVT, *DVT, *TVD all reflect one tone, and *DʰVDʰ, *DVDʰ, *DʰVD reflect another

[WeepingElf]

Isn't tonal theory for pre-PIE generally accepted?

What? I don't even have an idea what you are talking about!

I guess he refers to the idea that ablaut is due to stress and tone in (Pre-)PIE? That's indeed widely accepted in principle, but there are vicious debates about the how, when, and what, including the question on whether tone ever came into it.

Yes.

I did say it's the one about root structure constraints - how *TVT, *DVT, *TVD all reflect one tone, and *DʰVDʰ, *DVDʰ, *DʰVD reflect another

I understand. This has been suggested, and there are no better answer to this question yet, but it has not yet become part of mainstream IE handbooks. Most IEists simply don't ask the question; many treat PIE as if it was something fallen from the sky fully formed, and any enquiry into its prehistory was futile. That's of course not really a scientific posture; but at least one creationist opines that it was one of the languages arising from the Confusion of Tonges at Babel.

[abahot]

I don't know where your reconstruction is from

Wikipedia.

Many scholars also assume that the 2nd plural is a late addition to the system, and that the mediopassive / stative had an ending system that deviated from the later typical IE three persons, two numbers system.

What sort of ending system are we talking in terms of person/number contrast?

[abahot]

Many scholars assume, though, that *-r originally belonged only in the 3rd plural

This is a vast quantity of speculation, but I seem to remember someone on this thread (WeepingElf?) speculating that some verbs in pre-PIE were conjugated for both subject and object, in the order STEM-OBJECT-SUBJECT. And that this is where the thematic came from, as a fossilized 3sg object marker (compare stative *-e- in the 3sg), as in "I eat (it)", "you know (it)", etc. But one could explain the passive through a fossilized 3pl subject marker (compare stative *-ēr- in the 3pl), so "I was killed" comes from original "(they) killed me", and so forth. Of course, nothing here at all even approaches a coherent theory, but it is still interesting to think about.

[Richard W]

What sort of ending system are we talking in terms of person/number contrast?

We could think of a system where the second person didn't contrast number, as in English. Out there, there are also systems with reduced 3rd person marking, e.g. with no or zero marking for nominal subjects.

[WeepingElf]

Many scholars assume, though, that *-r originally belonged only in the 3rd plural

This is a vast quantity of speculation, but I seem to remember someone on this thread (WeepingElf?) speculating that some verbs in pre-PIE were conjugated for both subject and object, in the order STEM-OBJECT-SUBJECT. And that this is where the thematic came from, as a fossilized 3sg object marker (compare stative *-e- in the 3sg), as in "I eat (it)", "you know (it)", etc.

Yes, that was me. But I have to admit that this is just speculation, and I am not at all sure about it as there is too little evidence in favour of it.

But one could explain the passive through a fossilized 3pl subject marker (compare stative *-ēr- in the 3pl), so "I was killed" comes from original "(they) killed me", and so forth. Of course, nothing here at all even approaches a coherent theory, but it is still interesting to think about.

Sure.

[hwhatting]

Many scholars also assume that the 2nd plural is a late addition to the system, and that the mediopassive / stative had an ending system that deviated from the later typical IE three persons, two numbers system.

What sort of ending system are we talking in terms of person/number contrast?

I can't find the ones without a 2nd pl., but for diverging ending systems look e.g. at the articles of Roland Pooth on academia.edu (his views on PIE morphology are certainly not mainstream, but he's also not a crackpot or crank).

[WeepingElf]

I think the 2pl. is especially likely to undergo renewal as 2pl. markers often become polite/deferential 2sg. markers and a new 2pl. marker is felt to be needed.

[WeepingElf]

I have abandoned the idea that the thematic vowel in verbs originated in a fossilized 3rd person object marker. First, the thematic vowel precedes all inflections, as can be most clearly seen in the optative. Second, there are apparently thematic hi-conjugation verbs in Hittite - not many of them, but then, Hittite has fewer thematic verbs than the other branches where cognates of Hittite hi-conjugation verbs are mostly thematic. Hence, the thematic verbs are probably just verbs whose stems happen to end in a non-high vowel, just like thematic nouns.

What regards the idea that the Bell Beaker people spoke a language related to Anatolian, I am still researching the matter. But I have the impression that Hittite is more similar to the western IE languages like Latin or Germanic than to eastern ones like Greek or Sanskrit. Or to put it differently, the western languages have more in common with Hittite than the eastern ones do. Now the reconstruction shows us that the eastern languages are more conservative and the western languages have innovated - separately - which suggests a Hittite-like substratum in western Europe. As said before, there is onomastic evidence (chiefly the "Old European Hydronymy", but also things like the element *hal- (< PIE *sh₂el- 'salt'?) in the names of salt production sites) of a lost branch of IE in Bronze Age western Europe. Also, genetic and archaeological evidence suggests that both the Bell Beaker people and the Hittites descend from a southwestern outlier of the Yamnaya culture on the lower Danube. These hints taken together suggest that the Bell Beaker people spoke an IE language related to Anatolian. But I have to admit that I have no proof of this idea, and probably won't find it, so it is just a speculative idea good enough to build conlangs on, but not more

[abahot]

It’s pretty well established obviously that laryngeals existed in PIE, but what do we know about what environments it existed in phonetically? For example, did a laryngeal in -VHC- or -VH# exist at all? As far as I’m aware, no evidence exists in any daughter language that this laryngeal was still phonetically present. If so, we might want to push the loss of at least some laryngeals back into PIE times, including the last common ancestor of Common IE and Anatolian.

[abahot]

I have abandoned the idea that the thematic vowel in verbs originated in a fossilized 3rd person object marker. First, the thematic vowel precedes all inflections

So what? It might just be that the object marker was the first inflection in the chain of morphemes.

But I have the impression that Hittite is more similar to the western IE languages like Latin or Germanic than to eastern ones like Greek or Sanskrit.

What gives that impression?

The reconstruction shows us that the eastern languages are more conservative and the western languages have innovated - separately

It could also be that the western languages went through a period of areal influence with one another.

[WeepingElf]

I have abandoned the idea that the thematic vowel in verbs originated in a fossilized 3rd person object marker. First, the thematic vowel precedes all inflections

So what? It might just be that the object marker was the first inflection in the chain of morphemes.

Fair. But the hi-conjugation endings do not occupy that position, so it is pretty clear that the thematic vowel and the 3sg. hi-conjugation ending are not the same morpheme.

But I have the impression that Hittite is more similar to the western IE languages like Latin or Germanic than to eastern ones like Greek or Sanskrit.

What gives that impression?

I cannot put my finger on it yet - I am still researching this. For instance, the western languages shifted from the Late PIE tripartite aspect system to a simple tense system like that of Hittite. The Insular Celtic languages feel something like a "VSO version of Hittite" to me, but that is just a gut feeling.

The reconstruction shows us that the eastern languages are more conservative and the western languages have innovated - separately

It could also be that the western languages went through a period of areal influence with one another.

Of course.

[abahot]

I cannot put my finger on it yet - I am still researching this. For instance, the western languages shifted from the Late PIE tripartite aspect system to a simple tense system like that of Hittite. The Insular Celtic languages feel something like a "VSO version of Hittite" to me, but that is just a gut feeling.

Fair. I said that only because if something "feels" similar to other things, then it usually relates to something concrete.

Personally, I would rather like to believe that Greek and Indo-Iranian, being close in the "IE dialect", innovated a fairly neat tripartite aspect system from what must have been a complete mess of a verbal system before.

[WeepingElf]

Personally, I would rather like to believe that Greek and Indo-Iranian, being close in the "IE dialect", innovated a fairly neat tripartite aspect system from what must have been a complete mess of a verbal system before.

I wouldn't call that tripartite aspect system "neat"; it is quite messy: there are, after all, about twenty ways to form the present stem and four ways to form the aorist stem. Only the perfect is "neat", with just one way to form the perfect stem. It is hardly an overstatement that in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, all verbs are irregular.

Also, I think there is good evidence for the tripartite aspect system having been once present but lost in the western languages. Germanic turned the perfect into a preterite and lost the aorist; Celtic kept the aorist and lost the perfect. Italic kept some aorists and some perfects. Anatolian, in contrast, looks as if it never had the tripartite aspect system, though some of the formants are already there because when Northern IE built up the tripartite aspect system, it drew on forms that were already in existence.

And of course, at least Indo-Iranian has shed the tripartite aspect system later. I seem to remember reading somewhere that in Late Sanskrit, the imperfect, the aorist and the perfect were used interchangingly, with no synchronically discernible differences in meaning; languages like Hindi apparently no longer have these forms.

[Nortaneous]

morpheme boundary reanalysis (what was the exact term?)

Metanalysis?

Isn't tonal theory for pre-PIE generally accepted?

The analogy to Yabem? Not really. PIE is known to have had a mobile pitch accent, but contrastive tonal contours haven't been established.

Could be interesting to see if there are correlations between T/Dh series and accent pattern.

[abahot]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that in Late Sanskrit, the imperfect, the aorist and the perfect were used interchangingly, with no synchronically discernible differences in meaning; languages like Hindi apparently no longer have these forms.

Yes, I remember that too. By late Sanskrit, all three were indistinguishable (and freely replaceable by a participial construction), and by middle Indo-Aryan, only the original aorist survived for a past tense which was itself soon displaced by the aforementioned participial construction.

[abahot]

I wouldn't call that tripartite aspect system "neat"; it is quite messy: there are, after all, about twenty ways to form the present stem and four ways to form the aorist stem. Only the perfect is "neat", with just one way to form the perfect stem. It is hardly an overstatement that in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, all verbs are irregular.

What I meant by "neat" is that the three aspects are neatly separated from each other, not that the forms within each aspect are neat. It clearly seems like in earlier PIE, there were a variety of derivations available for each verb, and it seem(ed) like Greek and Sanskrit together created a tripartite system from this earlier mess. But reading what you've said now, I don't know if this is true anymore.

[WeepingElf]

I wouldn't call that tripartite aspect system "neat"; it is quite messy: there are, after all, about twenty ways to form the present stem and four ways to form the aorist stem. Only the perfect is "neat", with just one way to form the perfect stem. It is hardly an overstatement that in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, all verbs are irregular.

What I meant by "neat" is that the three aspects are neatly separated from each other, not that the forms within each aspect are neat. It clearly seems like in earlier PIE, there were a variety of derivations available for each verb, and it seem(ed) like Greek and Sanskrit together created a tripartite system from this earlier mess. But reading what you've said now, I don't know if this is true anymore.

I understand. I don't claim to be right about these matters - I am just a self-educated amateur. And there are indeed Indo-Europeanists who doubt that the western IE languages ever had a fully-formed tripartite aspect system as reconstructed in the standard model of PIE, and there are on the other hand ones who think that even Anatolian once had it.

BTW: Your post is #66666!

[bradrn]

Isn't tonal theory for pre-PIE generally accepted?

The analogy to Yabem?

What analogy is this? I’ve never heard of it.

[Moose-tache]

Based on this:
https://www.academia.edu/22203958/Tone_ ... t_in_Yabem
I assume the issue is that PIE plosive rows could be easier to understand as a vestigial mark of tonal contrasts. This is all very intriguing, but then again what complex feature in any language wouldn't be easier to fit in a tidy box if we pretend it's just a remnant of a different, now disappeared feature?