Re: [tied] Re: sum

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:15:19 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
>> >> 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.
>
>> There is no such apradigm.
>
>That's why I put asterisks in front. As a matter of fact, you could
>say the same of any reconstructed paradigm: they don't exist. But we
>have better or worse reasons for assuming they once might have. And
>what are your objections here?

That there is no reason to assume such a paradigm existed,
and good reason to assume it didn't (3pl. Slavic -s^éN, Ved.
-súr).

>Jasanoff actually has (p. 205)
>*´-s-m.
>*´-s-s
>*´-s-t
>
>..
>..
>*´-s-n.t

That is correct.

>but he keeps proposing ablaut for his paradigms, distributed on sg.
>vs. pl., with no explanation as to cause.

The cause is obviously that the plural/dual endings have one
syllable more than the singular endings.

>I thought it would be nice
>to fix that by putting in a mechanism to generate ablaut in the
>paradigm. Also, my proposal follows the accent of the Sanskrit s-
>aorist, at least in the sg.

No it doesn't. The s-aorist has root stress throughout.
Perhaps you mean the se-aorist, which has theme-stress
throughout.

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