Re: [tied] Re: Eggs from birds and swift horses

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 31372
Date: 2004-03-05

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:23:40 +0000, nathrao
<nathrao@...> wrote:

>So, do you think that thematic vowel + primary endings vs
>t.v + secondary endings had any meaning, or was one a replacement
>for the other (which way?)?

I would agree with Szemerényi that the subjunctive
originally had secondary endings, as seen in OLat. 3sg.
kapiad (-d < *-t, as opposed to -t < *-ti), Arcadian and
Thessalian 2/3sg. -e:s, -e: (< *-e-es, *-e-et) and Sanskrit,
where the pl. endings are always -a:ma, atha, -an (c.q.
-a:ma, -a:tha, -a:n), and 2/3 sg. are in free variation
(-a(:)s or -a(:)si, -a(:)t or -a(:)ti). This can also
explain the variation within Slavic of 3sg. and pl. forms
with endings -tU/-0 vs. -tI and -oNtU/-oN vs. -oNtI
(subjunctive vs. indicative forms originally).

Only the 1sg. shows the primary thematic ending -o: [almost]
everywhere. My theory is that the indicative ending arose
out of expected *-o-mi [in fact: *-o-mu-i > *-o-mW-i, with
labialized *mW] by Umlaut of the -i to -u, reduction of *mW
to *w, and then contraction of the ending *-owu to *-o:w (as
in the loc.sg. of the u-stems). Besides Hittite (-a:mi) and
Luwian (-a:wi), which reflect uncontracted *-omWi, only
Tocharian B still maintains the regular reflex of *-o:w as
thematic 1sg. -ew (> -aw). Elsewhere *-o:w was reduced to
*-o:. Now the subjunctive ending in Tocharian B is never
-ew or -aw but always -u, which can come from *-ow < *-o-mW,
i.e. the secondary ending, but with a different resolution
of the labialized nasal as compared to the imperfect/aorist
1sg. ending -om < *-omW.

This three-way split between past ind. *-om, subj. *-ow and
present ind. *-o:w is only seen in Tocharian B (-m, -u,
-ew), elsewhere the subjunctive shows the same form as the
present indicative (*-o:), which was probably a factor that
contributed to the penetration of 2./3sg. present ind.
*-esi, *-eti into the subjunctive paradigm.

I don't think the use of primary/secondary endings in the
subjunctive is grammaticalized anywhere to denote
present/past subjunctive, but I could be wrong.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...