Hittite and Indo-Eeuropean verb by Jay H. Jasanoff

By Jay H. Jasanoff

Show description

Read Online or Download Hittite and Indo-Eeuropean verb PDF

Best linguistics books

Name Dropping: A No-nonsense Guide to the Use of Names in Everyday Language

Ever had a Hitchcockian adventure (in the bathe might be? !) ormet an individual with a fantastically Ortonesque outlook on lifestyles? There arehundreds of phrases derived from genuine those who are recognized - or notorious- sufficient to offer their stamp to a circulation, a manner of considering oracting, a method or perhaps a temper. identify losing?

Additional info for Hittite and Indo-Eeuropean verb

Example text

T(h)ar, and Toch. 49 The only present middle 48 To which may be added, in the post-1979 era, Neu 1985 and Neu 1989. Supportive of the Neu–Meid approach is Tischler 1982. g. 1968: 138–43) derives the Hittite endings in -ri from the ‘Perfektum I’ 3 pl. present in *-ar, but takes the r -endings of Italo-Celtic and Tocharian from the corresponding (and equally conjectural) 3 pl. preterite in *-or. He thus denies one of the most striking isoglosses between Hittite and the rest of Indo-European. The Problem of the ḫi-conjugation 25 attributable to the common parent of Anatolian and the other IE languages, in Neu's view, was the type with added *-i, which gave rise to the ḫi-conjugation in Anatolian and to the familiar middle with diphthongal endings in Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Germanic.

And the other a deponent type in *-ḫa + i, *-ta + i, *-a + i, which gave rise to the ḫi-conjugation. 43 43 In the plural, of course, the perfect and the middle endings were quite distinct, and the plural ḫi -conjugation endings are decidedly closer to those of the perfect than those of the middle. But a defender of Rosenkranz's position would doubtless reply that all the plural endings of the ḫi -conjugation, with the exception of the 3 pl. pret. in -er, were borrowed from the mi -conjugation.

But the subjunctive mood was not used for inhibitives or prohibitives in the parent language,72 and there is no evidence, other than ogs itself, for its survival in Germanic. Strictly speaking, all that we know about the history of negative commands in Germanic is that the syntactic type *mē bheres ‘do not carry’, with the injunctive, was eventually replaced by the type *mē bherois (cf. Go. ni bairais), with the optative. e. that the optative simply took over the role of the injunctive when the injunctive became obsolete.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.39 of 5 – based on 49 votes