Re: [tied] Re: sum

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:09:09 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- 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

That should be *-s-ent

>> 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

There is no such apradigm.

>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?

Yes:

dadmI > damI
dadsi > dasi
dadt(I) > dast(I)
dadmU > damU
dadte > daste
dadeNt(I)
dadvê > davê
dadta > dasta
dadte > daste

>Is *deh3- "give" actually *doh1, de-reduplicated from
>*de-dh1-?

The Greek evidence says no.

>"will eat"
>em
>es^
>est
>
>edím
>edíte
>edyat
>
>Now where do _those_ 3rd sg -s-t come from?

d+t


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