Re: Beekes.

Hi.

Den 26. jul. 2008 kl. 18.14 skreiv Edgard Bikelis:
>
>>
>>
>> It never hurts to read new descriptions of something. I would recomend
>> both, along with Brugmann ; )
>>
>
> Brugmann is more than a 100 years old. Don't we understand PIE a little
> better now? Anyway, his 5 volume opus may be hard to access for me.

We do indeed, but it's kind of a classic on the field though, now else would
one understand something like "how brugmannian of you"? ; ).


> There are more books, but I suppose that beyond those we have just articles
>> left.
>>
>
>
>
> I should like something on how to classify verbs. So far, Thurneysen's
> classification of Old Irish verbs is the best lead I got. I guess weak verbs
> are a relatively late PIE innovation, and the further back we go, the fewer
> they get, but no IE families seem to have branched off completely without
> them. (I haven't studied Hittite, though.) Then there are subclasses inside
> the weak and strong.

Classify by morphology? There is the indian classification, but it's not
that accurate. I have to myself that each root have a standard aspect,
normally durative or aorist, and the other aspect is made by marking it
somehow. Like √yuj, yunákti, aorist áyujam: present with nasal infix,
radical aorist. But of course it's not that simple, as for instance in vedic
we have áyaukṣam... a sigmatic aorist, too, but no root present... *yójmi or
*yójāmi to go with it. Latin does the same thing: iungō, iunxī, iunctus. The
present has the nasal infix, but the perfect both it and an -s-, and still
iugum and con-iux. Many verbs mark aspect in more than one way... in -nā-,
-no-, -na-, reduplication in -a- or -i-... so, good luck with that ; ).


> A greek grammar would not hurt either... but I'm still to decide which one
>> is clear enough.
>>
>
> I have an old one published by the Joint Association of Classical Teachers.
> Seems useful enough.

You mean Reading Greek? Not good... at all.

Edgard.

Reply