From: tgpedersen
Message: 50180
Date: 2007-09-30
>Isn't that the same /a/ in 1sg am? How is that to be explained then?
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > On 2007-09-30 12:06, tgpedersen wrote:
> >
> > > Hm. I always thought that was a Verner variant of *es-. Could it
> > > be a loan from ON (em, ert, er, erum, eruþ, eru), which in turn
> > > could be back-formed from 3sg. er?
> >
> > There's also 3pl. aru in Old Swedish.
>
> But later (up to and including XIX century) pl. Sw. äro, Da. ere
>
> > In OE, all the dialects have <a> or <ea> (i.e., underlying *a), for
> > which there's no analogical model, and it's the northern (Mercian,
> > Northumbrian) forms that have final þ, which can't be explained as
> > ON-influenced.
>
> How about this:
> PIE ess tu > contracted *estu > PGerm. *estu (no Grimm after s);
> that way we won't have to posit some inconvenient PGerm. rule *-sþ-
> > *-st-. 2sg. suffixes *-t and *-þ are then from the PIE contracted
> and PGerm. contracted forms, respectively.
>
>
> > It's quite clear that 2sg. *izi (in all OE dialects) and 3pl.
> > *sindi (in some dialects) were replaced by suppletive forms
> > borrowed from a different paradigm.
>
> How about: from a different language?
>
>
> > The /a/ vocalism points to a preterito-present derived from
> > *(h1e-)h1or-
>
> Nice, if you stay within OE. How do we explain the /e/ vocalism of
> the parallel ON forms then?
>
>
> > > What's with the pres. 2sg. -t/-þ ?
> >
> > WS t is analogical (after the /t/ extension of 2sg. -s), while
> > (e)arþ is the regular reflex of *(h1e-)h1or-th2a.
>
> See above. I suspect the /a/ vocalism is NWBlock. Or the result of a
> loan.
>