[tied] Re: sum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> 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).
>

From stative?

> >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.
>

From your own notes:
Slavic
-xU, -sU
-0
-0

-xomU, -somU
-ste
-s^e~, -se~

-xove^, -sove^
-sta
-ste

"
The first person has been thematized (*-sW-o-m, *sW-o-mos, *sW-o-
we:), the others are athematic...
"
TP: now add a thematized 3rd pl and you got a semi-thematic paradigm

and

Sanskrit
á-bha:r-s.-am
á-bha:r-s.-0
á-bha:r-s.-0

etc. Full grade of suffix in 1st person, zero-grade otherwise.
That's pretty close to a semi-thematic paradigm.


Torsten