>So why is the 3pl. -�r?
With your solution, we have two problems *-men and
*-ten. With my solution, we only have the problem
of *-er. Mine sounds better already!
Now, *-er could suggest a lot of things. It could
be that the ending comes from MIE *-en, as opposed
to what is clearly *-ene (> *-en-t) in the durative
3rd person plural. However, something tells me
that the 3rd person singular and plural were originally
identical in the perfect endings and that some analogy
has changed this.
>>>This reflects the PIE thematic aorist (*-om, *-es,
>>>*-et; *-omos, *-etes, *-ont;
>>
>>You mean *-omes, don't you?
>
>No, OCS -mU is from *-mos.
Just OCS? What happened to the rest of IE?
>>Looks pretty clear to me. Does anyone see any problems
>>with this analysis?
>
>The athematic root aorist. The thematic present.
The athematic root aorists like *dox-t "gives"
appear to have identical endings to the durative
("present"). Nothing complex there.
The non-aorist stems used special aorist endings to
convey the aorist while aorist stems simply used the
durative endings in MIE. The durative and the aorist
aspects are linked together as part of what was once
the "active" and this is the reason why their endings
are virtually the same, the perfect being originally
the opposing "stative"... erh... but this gets into
Early IndoTyrrhenian morphology...
The thematic present in MIE would simply have been:
*-e-m *-�-mes
*-e-s *-�-te
*-e *-�ne
No biggy. I still don't understand what the problem
is with this idea.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
http://messenger.msn.com