Re: [tied] Re: sum

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:51:34 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>> >It can't be < *-om ?
>>
>> Not here. The thematic form would have been *bhars.ám
>> (*bhersóm), not bhá:rs.am (*bhé:rsm.). Wrong Ablaut, wrong
>> stress.
>>
>
>All three are stressed on the augment, so we have no knowledge of
>original stress.

We do: there is the augmentless injunctive.

>All three have vr.ddhi so that might be analogical
>too. The one thing that needs an explanation is why supposed 1st sg
>*-s-m. survived and 2nd *-s-s and 3rd *-s-t didn't.

That explanation is already known: -Css and -Cst become -C
in Vedic. Verbs ending in a vowel have 2/3sg. in -s (< -ss,
-st).

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