Re: sum

> So now both structures, the commonly reconstructed *H1és-mi and

the

> Schmalstieg-inspired *H1só(:)mi posited in honour of Latin sum,

are

> possible morphological structures in PIE. Then the question is,
> (what was the form of "I am" in PIE?

What was the form of "I am" in Victorian English?

>Now, "I am" is (1) Gothic im,
> 2) Old Irish -amm (Gaulish imi or immi), (3) Old Lithuanian esmi,
> OCS jesmI, (4) Albanian jam, (5) Armenian em, (6) Greek eimí, (7)
> Sanskrit asmí (Av. ahmi, OP amiy), (8) Hittite esmi. Tocharian

uses

> a different word, ad Latin and Oscan have sum. So, out of the nine
> branches that have diagnostic material, eight point to *H1esmi,

and

> one looks like *H1somi.

Two. You left out Serbo-Croat and Slavic Macedonian 'som'. And now
your proposal are exposed to the same criticism as mine: How did
those similar forms arise in several languages?

>Of the eight votes for *H1esmi, some at
> least (1-6) are from languages in which the very form /esmi/ is
> itself a gross irregularity.

A gross irregularity in the respective languages, but in PIE it
would not be rocket science to construct a *h1es-mi from *h1es-si
and *h1es-ti.

>That already makes it compelling to
> posit a protoform of the structure *H1esmi, provided there is any
> conceivable avenue by which this form can turn into Latin sum. And
> of course there is, there are probably many, but the shortest way

is

> of course adjustment to the partly de-thematicized allegro-based
> outcomes of *bhero: bheresi etc. and subsequent internal

adjustment

> of its alternants to get the same stem-form in sum as in sumus

sunt,

> because these forms go together in fero fermus ferunt and edo

edimus

> edunt. When that is done, *edo(:)mi goes on to become edo: after
> fero: (and lego: etc.), while *som(:)i stays like that and

develops

> regularly into sum.

Alright. So you have
*h1esmi
*h1essi
*h1esti
and
fero:
fersi
ferti
and you come up with
somi
essi
esti

I don't get it.


Torsten