>Does the -j- appear tangibly in any Slavic representative
> On 2006-08-02 10:36, tgpedersen wrote:
> > *peikõ
> > *peic^et
> > ->
> > *pis^u
> > *piset
> > which is not quite Russian, since the
> > 3rd sg there is pis^et. But the "second
> > stem", that of inf. and pret. is pisa-
> > with an /s/, so I assume the /s^/ of
> > 3rd sg etc is analogous?
> > Please object.
> If you insist...
> The s ~ s^ alternation in Slavic (as in Russ. pisát' 'to write' :
> pís^et) results from the fact thet the verbs in this
> conjugation had present stems in *-je/o-, and *-sj-
> yields Slavic /s^/ whatever the origin of the *s. We have
> exactly the same alternation in roots ending in inherited
> PIE *s, e.g. Russ. c^esát' 'to comb' : c^és^et (PIE *kes-).
> The 'cook' root was conjugated differently, like Skt. pácati <And ditto?
> *pékW-e-ti (the simple thematic type). Here the PSl.
> infinitive was *pek-ti > OCS pes^ti, Russ. pec^, Pol. piec,
> and the present was 1sg. *pek-oN, 3.sg. *pec^-etI (Russ.
> pekú, pec^ët). Of course there were also roots ending in
> *k(W) that formed *-je/o- present stems. In those cases
> we have infinitives ending in *-k-ati with presents that
> have *c^ < *-k(W)j- across the paradigm, e.g. Russ.
> plákat' 'weep' : plác^u, plác^et.