> tgpedersen wrote:What
> > Further, who would want to press a verb for 'be' into a new and
> > complicated mould, such as that of the semi-thematic paradigm?
> > purpose would be served by that?Polish?
> Who would have wanted to complicate the paradigm of 'to be' in
> 1sg. jestem < jest (3sg.!) + jes'm' (the original 1sg.)
> 2sg. jestes' < jest + jes'
> 3sg. jest
> 1pl. jestes'my < jest + jesmy (why not *sa,s'my?)
> 2pl. jestes'cie < jest + jes'cie
> 3pl. [surprise!] sa,
> Who would have wanted to complicate the present-tense conjugation
> be' in German by mixing <bin> with b-less forms? What's "purpose"does
> <are> serve in in English?forms
> People don't _plan_ such things. They try to make sense of the
> they are exposed to when learning their mother tongue, andsometimes
> they fail to analyse them correctly, so they missegment morphemes,analogies,
> confuse or blend words, overgeneralise, fall prey to false
> etc. As Jens pointed out, in allegro forms *e was more likely tobe
> syncopated than *o, so the semithematic paradigm was produced by apoint the
> phonetic process affecting frequently used verb forms. At some
> new generation of Latin speakers heard [fert] much more frequentlythan
> *[feret], so they assumed the former to be the underlying form,just
> like the present-day speakers of English treat <every> asdisyllabic.
>You must think I'm an idiot. Of course I know that, like everyone
> > Schmalstieg, if I understand him*bhert
> > correctly, thinks the semi-thematic paradigm (*bhro: *bhers
> > *bhromos *bhertis *bhront) was the original one and the thematicone
> > a generalisation of it.sure
> I won't spoil Jens's fun by explaining why this is untenable. I'm
> he'll demolish the idea with gusto :)All Jens had to say was that the semi-thematic paradigm is rare.