Re: sum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > [JER:]
> > > > That needs to be spelled out if I am to be able to see it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > *bhróm,
> > > *bhórs
> > > *bhórt,
> > > *bhróme,
> > > *bhórte,
> > > *bhrónt
> > >
> > > The stressed vowel is -ó- and it occurs before a voiced sound.
> >
> > But if this is supposed to be the present paradigm of the verb
> > meaning 'carry' in PIE right before it disintegrated into
> branches,
>
> No, it's from pre-PIE.

But if it is NOT the form of the verb right before the split-up of
the IE unity it is not relevant. You must derive the Latin facts
from the IE protolanguage and not from some idealized prestage of it.

If your paradigm is meant to conatin something that Latin could
inherit, the other branches should also have been able to inherit
the same, but have then consistently chosen not to show it.

> > one wonders what became of this paradigm which seems nowhere
> > continued, and where the paradigm *bhérom *bhéres, *bhéret etc.,
> > which all the branches unanimously point to, came from.
>
> From PIE.

So, if *bhérom *bhéres, *bhéret was PIE, why will you not accept
these forms as the preforms valid for the Latin inflection also? Are
you making up an Indo-Italic hypothesis??

Jens