aspectual

So let's remodel the above into a new, purely aspectual system which might better account for everything, including Anatolian this time:

Archive 2009-08-01 2009

We can then take note of an interesting aspectual contrast between *bʰḗr-m̥ 'I carry/carried' with no specific event being conveyed (potentially habitual), and the semelfactivizing quality of the sigmatic form *bʰḗr-s-m̥ 'I have carried (once)', acting essentially like a perfective for inherently durative verbs.

Archive 2009-08-01 2009

(13 Aug 2009) Just noticed something I might want to rearrange with better clarity: We can then take note of an interesting aspectual contrast between *bʰḗr-mi 'I am/was carrying' with no specific event being conveyed (potentially habitual), and the semelfactivizing quality of the sigmatic form *bʰḗr-s-m̥ 'I have carried (once)' ...

Looking for a simple origin to Hittite's hi-class preterite 2009

Later, as the system settled into a new tensual contrast, any aspectual distinctions between the mi-class and hi-class dissolved since the only thing that mattered now, grammatically speaking, was past and present-future (ie. when an action occurred), not the aspect (ie. how an action occurred).

Archive 2009-08-01 2009

We can then take note of an interesting aspectual contrast between *bʰḗr-m̥ 'I carry/carried' with no specific event being conveyed (potentially habitual), and the semelfactivizing quality of the sigmatic form *bʰḗr-s-m̥ 'I have carried (once)', acting essentially like a perfective for inherently durative verbs.

Looking for a simple origin to Hittite's hi-class preterite 2009

In other words, rather than reconstructing a separate voice, we might simply place the middle in a different aspectual category under the subjective distinct from the *r-less "proto-perfect" and further treat it as the marked "presentive" form of the subjective.

Archive 2009-09-01 2009

So let's remodel the above into a new, purely aspectual system which might better account for everything, including Anatolian this time:

The active-stative mess 2009

In other words, rather than reconstructing a separate voice, we might simply place the middle in a different aspectual category under the subjective distinct from the *r-less "proto-perfect" and further treat it as the marked "presentive" form of the subjective.

Interesting quirks of a PIE subjective-objective model 2009

Later, as the system settled into a new tensual contrast, any aspectual distinctions between the mi-class and hi-class dissolved since the only thing that mattered now, grammatically speaking, was past and present-future (ie. when an action occurred), not the aspect (ie. how an action occurred).

Looking for a simple origin to Hittite's hi-class preterite 2009

(13 Aug 2009) Just noticed something I might want to rearrange with better clarity: We can then take note of an interesting aspectual contrast between *bʰḗr-mi 'I am/was carrying' with no specific event being conveyed (potentially habitual), and the semelfactivizing quality of the sigmatic form *bʰḗr-s-m̥ 'I have carried (once)' ...

Archive 2009-08-01 2009