[tied] Re: Morphology (2/20)

From: sergejus_tarasovas
Message: 14376
Date: 2002-08-18

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

> Irregular depalatalization of *-tI to *-tU is a possibilty, but I
would prefer a
> solution that also explains the loss of the ending altogether,
instead of
> introducing that as a second irregularity. What if Proto-Slavic
had both
> primary *-ti and secondary (conjunctive?) *-t in the present, à la
> That would have given *-tI, and *-0 (after vowel) or *-t (after
consonant, at
> least after -s-). Then regularly *[jes]t > *[jes]tU, and also the
> after vowel is optionally extended with the pronoun *tU. As a
result, we have
> the attested Slavic situation: -tI (Russ. <jest'>, O.Pol.
<jes'c'>), -tU (OCS
> <jestU>, Pol. <jest>) and zero (Ukr., Bul., Cze. etc. <je>) in
apparently random
> distribution.

May be the following fact about Krivichian will be of some interest
to you. According to Zalizniak, in Krivichian -0 is predominant, but -
tI occurs in some cases as well (despite what I wrote in the previous
posting for the sake of simplicity). The distribution seemes to be as
1. -0 is predominant in conditional clauses, also in adverbial,
purposive and complement subordinate clauses, -0 is not predominant
in other types of sentences.
2. -tI is predominant before pronominal enclitics
(_s'a_,_t'a_,_m'a_,_si_,_ti_,_mi_) and enclitic particle _ti_.
If that distribution reflects something really old, it could indeed
be about subjunctive or other PIE verbal category.