From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>On 2007-02-19 01:00, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:The question where the *i comes from aside, the G.sg. of
>> There is no shift to *-o- in substantives, as the *-o- is
>> well-attested in the pronominal forms themselves. *kWeh1 and
>> *kWesyo have /e/ because these forms simply do not contain a
>> thematic vowel: they come from *kWis, n. *kWid, f. *kWih2.
>There seems to be a fundamental difference between our views on the
>status of the *-i- forms (often found alongside *-e/o- forms in a
>suppletive relationship to them). I like Jens's theory about the *i
>resulting from the phonetic reduction of the thematic vowel in clitic
>pronouns (as in some other departments of PIE morphophonology). Why
>should forms like *kWesjo, *kWeh1 be more closely related to "athematic"
>*kWis rather than "thematic" *kWos?
>It's obvious that the analogicalIn my opinion, they are from *t%-esm- > *to-sm-.
>spread of *-o- could take place even in pronominal declensions (let
>alone nouns and adjectives): what are oblique stems like m./n. *to-sm-
>if not regularised counterparts of *te-sm-
>(cf. f. *te-s[m]-jah2-)?The feminine forms are structured differently. While in the
>> It suggests to me that the deadjectival verbs are built uponBecause Slavic *-i:- (circumflex) cannot come from *-éh1-,
>> the athematic root of the adjective, which would compromise
>> the link with the "cato-group".
>The way I'd reconstruct them, we have, first, the "athematic" variant
>with an aorist in *-éh1-/*-h1- (I know Jens has elaborated on this
>recently, but this approximate reconstruction will do for the present
>discussion) and a derived present in *-h1-jé/ó- (the *h1 will usually be
>rendered invisible by Pinault's Law). Secondly, we have the "thematic"
>variant with an aorist in *-e-h1- (where the *-e- never disappears) and
>a present in *-e-h1-je/o-. I'd also predisct the existence of a minor
>subtype in *-i-h1-je/o- depending on the original location of accent,
>but analogy might have blurred the distinction early. What presisely is
>wrong with this fully transparent scheme, and why is it so inadequete
>I find your proposal strange even if it seems to workI don't know if it's underlyingly //-eh1-j-//, because I
>phonologically for BSl., since I can't make any sense of a stem which is
>underlyingly //-eh1-j-//, and which is BOTH present and aorist.