From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 14385
Date: 2002-08-19
>Miguel:So why is the 3pl. -ér?
>>Note the regular development **-n[C] > *-r[C] in the 2nd and 3rd plural,
>>but not in the 1pl., where
>>*-n was preserved after nasal *-m-.
>
>Since Hittite reflects /-men/ and /-ten/, not /-men/
>and */-ter/, I can provide a smoother solution that
>accually accounts for the facts.
>
>The endings were once *-mene and *-tene in Mid IE. In
>other words, *-n was not in final position at the time
>of *-n > *-r. The rhoticizing of *-n occured _before_
>the deletion of unstressed schwas, eventually leaving
>*-men and *-ten (as we ACTUALLY find). Also, according
>to Mid IE penultimate accentuation, the endings must
>have been stressed, supplying the reason for their
>non-zero grade.
>>This reflects the PIE thematic aorist (*-om, *-es,No, OCS -mU is from *-mos.
>>*-et; *-omos, *-etes, *-ont;
>
>You mean *-omes, don't you?
>>Against amalgamating the imperfect and the aorist at >the PIE stage is theThe athematic root aorist. The thematic present.
>>fact that there is one important
>>formal difference between the thematic aorist and
>>the thematic imperfect. The latter is conjugated like a normal thematic
>>verb (*[h1e-]bhér-et), while
>>the former invariably follows the tudáti-type, i.e.
>>the thematic vowel is stressed and the root appears in zero grade
>>(*[h1e-]bhugh-é-t).
>
>It's most probable that at some point in the past,
>the durative (imperfect) and the aorist used the same
>endings. By accepting that Mid IE had a penultimate
>stress, the reason for the accent difference is simple:
>The aorist endings are merely the secondary endings
>(originally the "primary" endings) with what was once
>an additional final schwa. Thus, in Mid IE, before
>schwa deletion:
>
> durative aorist
> 1s *-em *-em-e
> 2s *-es *-es-e
> 3s *-e *-e-he
>
>The source of this schwa ending is merely a general
>locative demonstrative *?e seen elsewhere, having a
>temporal & spatial meaning of "at that place or time".
>By its suffixation, the stress predictably shifted to
>the next syllable, onto the thematic vowel. (Of course
>as I've said many times, the 3s durative adopted the
>familiar deictic *-t much later in the Late IE period.)
>
>Looks pretty clear to me. Does anyone see any problems
>with this analysis?