[tied] Re: sum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > What I (or Schmalstieg) claimed was that the original paradigm
> > involved two forms: one with e-grade of root and zero-grade of
> > suffix (2nd, 3rd sg., 2nd pl.) and one with zero-grade of root

and o-

> > grade of suffix (1st sg., 1st, 3rd pl.). You can remove the 1st

sg.

> > from the latter form, and you can remove the 1st pl. but

languages

> > hang on to having the 3rd pl. with that form. Including Polish.
>
> In Slavic (including Polish), the reflex of the much more frequent
> _thematic_ *-oNtI < *-o-nti has been generalised analogically. The

same

> has happened in several other subgroups of IE, even in Hittite,

and

> little wonder, since the contrast between *-o-nt(-i) and -ént(-i)

(~

> -n.t(-i) if unstressed), which arose in pre-PIE, was neither

transparent

> nor functional in dialectal IE, and speakers were free to confuse

the

> endings with impunity. There are, however, clear traces of an

original

> *-é-nt-i both in the 3pl. of 'to be' (*h1s-ént-i) and in other

athematic

> paradigms (Gk. eisi [Dor. enti], Goth. sind, Umbr. sent, OIr. it,

OWel.

> hint). These forms can hardly be analogical to anything, so the

orthodox

> view is that *h1s-enti represents the older, PIE variant.
>

If I had 1st sg. *semi, 1st pl. *sém (vel.sim., cf. German sind) and
3rd pl. *sénti, I could claim Ausgleich here too.
The main reason why I want to see

*-óm
*´-s
*´-t
*-ómV
*´-tV
*-ónt

as _the_ Ur-paradigm is that it's maximally coherent phonologically
and minimally morphologically; that's the best start for a paradigm
from which you want to generate the rest by Ausgleich. Any other
choice will disappoint Occam. And it's doing OK with imperfect and s-
aorist too, unexpectedly.


Torsten