The details differ somewhat from author to
author, but *bHere- is conjugated more or less like the rest of Class II
(*bHeroh2(i), *bhereth2ai, *bHerei). I'm not sure about Adams's favourite
endings; I'd have to go to my institute library to check that, and that won't
happen until early next millennium. But Mark has a copy of his own and
if we ask him politely, maybe he'll be good enough to check the details in
the article on the "Proto-Indo-European Language" and tell us how
Adams conjugates *bHere-. (Would you, Mark?) Anyway it's clear that *bHere-si
and *bHere-ti are innovated (they don't occur in some branches in the thematic
conjugation), while "*bHero:" is an old form.
I agree *-th2a is ugly, but Greek and
Sanskrit -tha (*woid-th2a > Gk (w)oistha, Skt wettha) leaves us little
choice. If this reconstruction is correct, the ending must be composite *-t-h2a.
It's thinkable that *-h2a is ultimately borrowed from the first person and that
the original 2sg ending was just *-t, but this is pure speculation. Perhaps
*-h2a had other functions apart from being the 1sg ending.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE conjugations
... Whoa! Stop! You mean *bhere- is supposed to be conjugated
as [*bherexai, *bheretxai, *bherei] as well?! Or do you mean that this IIb
subclass is conjugated as a "thematic" subclass with the modified *mi-endings
like in Class I [*bhero:, *bheresi, *bhereti] just as usual and that IIa is
non-thematic, using stative-indicative endings (eg: [*org^hxai, *org^htxai,
*org^hei]).
Second, why is this weird cluster *-tx- insisted upon in the
2ps? It hurts my eyes. I know Sanskrit with its /-th-/ must have something to do
with this. What else?