Re: Athematic PIE 2sg imperative

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> AfaIk the consensus is that the PIE 2sg imperative suffix was *-dhi.
> But Jasanoff discusses some in *-si (eg Hittite pahsi "protect!").
> I was wondering if the PIE suffix wasn't *-i, or rather an ablauting
> *-ei/*-i (cf Russian derz^í, búd´), and that *-dhi was instead the
> imperative of *dheh1- "put" (which I suspect is also behind various
> past suffixes in the style of *-ta)?
>
>
> Torsten
>

Why to use a 'put'-suffix for a 'come on!' construction (for example)?

But on thr other hand, I also sustain the ideea that ALL ancient
suffixes (so PIE 2sg imperative suffix *-dhi too) were originally
distinct words : this is the reason for that I have asked here about
possible <verb+verb> PIE constructions ...

As a result I think also that a PIE ancestor language didn't have any
flexionary form

Marius