[tied] Re: Vrddhi in sigmatic aorist

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:

> The usual explanation is that <xodU>, <xoditi>, <s^IdU> have

developed

> from *sed- in combination with RUKI-generating prefixes such as u-,
> pri- (u-xoditi "to (go) sit outside" -> "to go out"; pri-xoditi "to
> (go) sit inside" -> "to come in", and then by analogy xoditi "to

go").

I know. IMO, sandhi conditions are abused when problematic *x- < *s-
is to be explained, but I can't offer anything better.

> This presupposes that */sW/ gives
> Slavic *x, as in <s^est'> "six".
> I have of course suggested that the *x in the loc.pl. (*-sW-i ~
> *-sW-u) and the 2sg.pres.them.act. -es^I (*-e-sWi) have the same
> explanation.

An interesting idea (though a bit speculatory, and what about other
RUKI-influenced branches?). *x in Loc. pl. can be, more or less,
explained as an analogical development, but this *-es^I just have
been keeping me from sleeping for years. I'll sleep more easily from
now on . :)

> I would also want the dem. pronoun *so ~ *to- to have
> been originally *sWo- ~ *to-, but of course Slavic offers no

evidence

> for that, because the nom.sg.masc. has been regularized to <tU>. Or
> does it? Slavic is known to have used postfixed pronouns as a kind

of

> definite article (e.g. OCS rodU-sI > rodosI, rabU-tU > rabotU, and

of

> course novU-jI > novyj).

*so- might have been preserved in compounds (like *sI (acc. sg.) in
*dInIsI 'today'), most likely in complex pronouns and subjunctives.
I'll signal if I come across something of the kind.

Sergei