On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:12:16 -0000, "sergejus_tarasovas" <
S.Tarasovas@...>
wrote:
>--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> Slavic -es^I, -etU ,, *-esI, *-etI
>
>Proto-Slavic *-es^I, *-etI (as in East Slavic), Old Church Slavonic
>is aberrant here. On the other hand, the idea of agglutinated *tU
>seems to be supported by Old Prussian with its agglutinated -ts
>(<*tas ?).
OCS and East Slavic are the only evidence we have, as in all modern West and
South Slavic languages the 3rd. person forms have lost the *-t(U) and/or *-t(I)
[which is an aberration in itself]. I would hesitate to call OCS aberrant here
(from a Slavic point of view). Northern (and literary) Russian has hard -t in
the 3sg. and pl., against soft -t' in athematic est' (sut') [unless those are
churchslavonicisms, I'm not sure], exactly as in OCS. It is hard to imagine
how, given Proto-Slavic thematic -etI, -o~tI and athematic -tI, -e~tI, the OCS
and N-Russian split (them. -tU, athem. -tI) may have arisen, while the converse
(East-Slavic merger) is unproblematical. Of course, if the split was already in
Proto-Slavic, the problem is transferred to the Proto-Indo-European ->
Proto-Slavic stage. But as I was suggesting, in that stage we have similar
developments in Celtic and Italic (*-e-ti > *-e-t, which would then give
Proto-Slavic -e [as in West and South [except OCS] Slavic?]).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...