--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 14:04:55 +0000, elmeras2000
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >And what has one (one of decent birthplace, I take it) achieved
when
> >one has done that? Called the sigmatic aorist "irreal"
> >and "semithematic" although it nowhere is either?
>
> It's very real, but apparently semithematic in Slavic:
>
> *-s-o-m
> ?
> ?
> *-s-o-mos
> *-s-te(s)
> *-s-n.t
>
> Different kind of semithematic, though.
>
Jasanoff wants to derive the 'inner-IE' (IE minus Anatolian, minus
Tocharian) s-aorist from a 'pre-sigmatic aorist' (partly with
stative endings):
*´-h2e
*´-th2e
*´-s-t
*´-me-
*´-te
*´-r.s
If he is right, and I am right, then the 'inner-IE' substitution
*-s-óm
*´-s-s
*´-s-t
*-sómV
*-s-te
*-sónt
happened at a time when the semi-thematic paradigm was alive as a
model, ie after Hittite and Tocharian left.
But I think he missed something. Cf. Russian perfective fut.
(formally present)
"will give"
dam
das^ (< *-si)
dast
dadím
dadíte
dadút
Reduplication? Is *deh3- "give" actually *doh1, de-reduplicated from
*de-dh1-?
"will eat"
em
es^
est
edím
edíte
edyat
Now where do _those_ 3rd sg -s-t come from? Something to think about.
Torsten