Re: Verbs Outside of the Slavic

--- Kevin Athey <kevindeanathey@...> wrote:

> Thanks!  This is useful.
>
> >From: Elliott Lash <erelion12@...>
> >
> >Old Irish marks perfective and potential aspect by
> >augmenting the verb with a derivational prefix. For
> >most verbs it is "ro-" (or some phonologically
> >conditioned variant). But, for some a range of
> other
> >prefixes are used. Note also, that in the examples
> >this "prefix" is often inserted between the root
> and
> >another prefix which is in Old Irish grammar called
>  a
> >"preverb". I'll mark the preverb off from the root
> >with a colon.
>
> Is the preverb historically part of the verb proper,
> or it did it develop
> from a series of bound morphemes?
The preverb is historically a preposition that was
prefixed to a verbal root. This is a common
Indo-European Process. Most prepositions can become
preverbs and modify the meaning of the root in various
ways. Up to four preverbs can be added, in the
examples I gave, only the first preverb was marked off
with a colon, the rest had been smushed together with
the root in a variety of morphophonemic processes.


> <snip examples>
>
> /ro/, /com/, and /ad/?  Do you know the etymologies
> of these morphemes?  It
> is the etymological typology of the process I'm most
> interested in.
The etymologies of the morphemes are from forms
basically like the Latin morphemes.

 *pro  > ro     "before"
 *cum  > com    "with"
 *ad   > ad     "to"

They are prepositions that have become grammaticalized
in certain constructions with certain verbs.

> Also, is the potential ambiguous with the
> perfective, or is there a
> different set of morphemes for forming the
> potential?  All of your examples
> were perfective.
No, all of my examples were perfective since usually
the preterite tense takes on this
perfective/resultative meaning when the augmenting
aspectual prefix is applied. Future and present tenses
take on a potential meaning. I'm unsure about what
happens with subjunctives or conditionals. I'll have
to check into that.


> >And a lot of others prefixes. But mostly it's "ro".
> >Also, some verbs add some other prefix to a
> suppletive
> >root to for the potential or the perfective.
>
> Interesting, but not too surprising.  Could you give
> an example or two of
> that with etymological glosses?
There's a verb:
  do:beir "he gives, imposes, brings takes"

 In the preterite it is do:bert "he gave, etc"

 In the "augmented" form (perfective/potential/etc) it
splits:

  do:rat "he has given/has imposed"
  do:uc  "he has brought/taken"

 (I'm unsure of the etymologies, but I believe that
<do:rat> is some how composed of 'do' a preverb +
ro/ra the aspectual augment, and then a root <t> which
is pronounced /d/. Probably somehow related to the
Indo European root represented in Latin <do> "I give")

 Another one is the root <téit> "he goes"

 The potential is:  do:dichet "he can go"

This is usually analysed as <do:de-com-wed> with the
root <wed> What happens in Old Irish is that the
aspectual augment <do-cum> in this case, becomes
squished together. The <m> and the <w> combine to give
<w> which is then lost regularly.And so forth and so
on, although of phonological alterations in Old Irish,
especially in verbs. The root <wed> is probably
related to English <wade>. The aspectual augments are
<de> and <com>. <de> is a preposition meaning "of"

There's a few others, but they have "ro" as the
augment.


I hope this helps further.

~ elliott




		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250