[tied] Re: Lithuanian nom.pl. participles

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

>
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:23:20 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>

wrote:

> >>
> >> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:00:28 +0000, tgpedersen
> >> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >>
> >It's striking how similar the Uralic 1st 2nd endings are to those

of

> >IE, eg Estonian
> >
> >-n -me
> >-d -te
> >
> >but the 3rd pers endings are not:
> >
> >-b -vad
> >
> >Jens (I think it was) told me that those endings are originally
> >participial. It's therefore tempting to seek a similar

explanation

> >for IE.
>
> The participial element in the Uralic forms above is b/v (-d
> is the plural morpheme). Since it is a present participle,
> it is absent from the preterite forms.
>
> If PIE were parallel to Uralic here, one would have to find
> an element which occurs in both 3sg. and 3pl., and not in
> the preterite. There is no such element: 3sg. *-t(i) and
> 3pl. *-nt(i) have /t(i)/ in common, but the /t/ also occurs
> in the preterite.
>

That depends on your definition of 'preterite'. If we read that
as 'perfect' (and understand all other preterites as built up of
extended stems + ending, and further understand the 'present
participle' as 'tenseless neutral' instead), then "the /t/ also
occurs in the preterite" isn't true.


Torsten