Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/éti
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Bezimenen in topic Relation with *h₁éi?
Wrong part of speech?
[edit]I think that I may has misclassified this as an adjective by misreading, but I am not sure what else to classify it as. Adverb ? Preposition? Both ? --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- The descendants don't support adjective; in fact, most are conjunctions. I can't tell for sure, but I would say preposition is best. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's hard to point out the distinction in many cases. Adverbs and prepositions in particular were not clearly distinguished in PIE, most 'prepositions' were in fact adverbs. Presumably, a PIE speaker would have normally used one of the cases for most general meanings, and if the speaker deemed necessary an adverb could strengthen that meaning or specify it some way (this is also seen in modern Finnish for example). This is why prepositions in all the descendants take such a wide variety of cases. Conjunctions are often formed from adverbial phrases introducing relative clauses, and a word such as this one, meaning 'beyond', could easily be extended to mean 'and' (its Latin meaning). One specific example is Swedish och (“and”), from Proto-Germanic Template:termx, from Indo-European Template:termx. So I think the true answer to the question of whether this is an adverb, preposition or conjunction is probably 'yes, it is'. :P —CodeCat 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- This seems to be a locative form. Similar to *h₁epi "on", *h₂m̥-bʰi "around", *peri "through" (locative of *per - "fore part"), *h₂enti - "in front of" (*h₂ent "end" in locative). --Anixx (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's hard to point out the distinction in many cases. Adverbs and prepositions in particular were not clearly distinguished in PIE, most 'prepositions' were in fact adverbs. Presumably, a PIE speaker would have normally used one of the cases for most general meanings, and if the speaker deemed necessary an adverb could strengthen that meaning or specify it some way (this is also seen in modern Finnish for example). This is why prepositions in all the descendants take such a wide variety of cases. Conjunctions are often formed from adverbial phrases introducing relative clauses, and a word such as this one, meaning 'beyond', could easily be extended to mean 'and' (its Latin meaning). One specific example is Swedish och (“and”), from Proto-Germanic Template:termx, from Indo-European Template:termx. So I think the true answer to the question of whether this is an adverb, preposition or conjunction is probably 'yes, it is'. :P —CodeCat 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Move to h₁eti
[edit]Should be moved to h₁eti. Per [1]. Another form h₁oti --Anixx (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- D. Ringe reconstructs the word as *éti. What evidence is there for the initial laryngeal? —CodeCat 23:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Beekes, 1995 reconstructs it with laryngeal. I think the general evidence is that it is a locative form.--Anixx (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Locatives have to start with laryngeals? —CodeCat 00:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I meant that this is a locative form of a noun root *h₁et. It is unlikely for roots to start with a vowel.--Anixx (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's true, but there are evidently quite some words that have no initial vowel. It is of course possible to reconstruct them all with an initial laryngeal, but that seems like putting the cart before the horse. Also, the -i found in the locative case ending wasn't originally a locative ending at all. It was just a general particle known as the 'here-and-now' particle, which no doubt was the reason why it was added to the existing endingless locative. But the -i is also found in other words, which certainly are not case forms. The -i in many of the present endings in verbs is the same particle, but in verbs it indicates the present tense, not a locative. —CodeCat 00:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest the move so to prevent the confusion with another stem *h₂eti which means "at", "to", "from". The difference is only in laryngeal.--Anixx (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's true, but there are evidently quite some words that have no initial vowel. It is of course possible to reconstruct them all with an initial laryngeal, but that seems like putting the cart before the horse. Also, the -i found in the locative case ending wasn't originally a locative ending at all. It was just a general particle known as the 'here-and-now' particle, which no doubt was the reason why it was added to the existing endingless locative. But the -i is also found in other words, which certainly are not case forms. The -i in many of the present endings in verbs is the same particle, but in verbs it indicates the present tense, not a locative. —CodeCat 00:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I meant that this is a locative form of a noun root *h₁et. It is unlikely for roots to start with a vowel.--Anixx (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Locatives have to start with laryngeals? —CodeCat 00:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Beekes, 1995 reconstructs it with laryngeal. I think the general evidence is that it is a locative form.--Anixx (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Beekes 2011:247 reconstructs both *h₁eti and *h₁oti, the latter form being needed for Balto-Slavic. So I suggest that the page be moved to the neutral spellnig *(h₁)Vti if we want to treat them together. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The meaning
[edit]Seems the meaning was "over", not "out". The "out" is confusion with another preposition *h₂eti [2]. I will change the meaning.--Anixx (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Relation with *h₁éi?
[edit]Is there general consensus if *h₁éti and *h₁éi are derived from the same root? In the entry for proto-Slavic *i (“and”), it is mentioned that the -i variant is the locative of *h₁é, while the -ti variant (given there as -d) is the ablative. I find this relation plausible, but I couldn't find it stated anywhere. Bezimenen (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)