Re: [tied] PIE conjugations

Piotr:

>There are two major conjugations, each with subtypes. The first is >what
>used to be called "athematic" (*gWHen-mi, *gWHen-si, *gWHen-ti, >...
>*gWHn-enti).

Thanx, Grandmaster P. 'Kay, I get this part...

>The second is divided into two subclasses (say, IIa and IIb), both >with
>endings similar to those reconstructed for the classical >"perfect". IIa
>contains some recently identified paradigms like >ablauting o-presents
>(like *k^onk-, *molh2- or *h1org^H-), while >those in IIb are the old
>"thematic" verbs (*bHere-, etc.).

... Whoa! Stop! You mean *bhere- is supposed to be conjugated as [*bherexai,
*bheretxai, *bherei] as well?! Or do you mean that this IIb subclass is
conjugated as a "thematic" subclass with the modified *mi-endings like in
Class I [*bhero:, *bheresi, *bhereti] just as usual and that IIa is
non-thematic, using stative-indicative endings (eg: [*org^hxai, *org^htxai,
*org^hei]).

Second, why is this weird cluster *-tx- insisted upon in the 2ps? It hurts
my eyes. I know Sanskrit with its /-th-/ must have something to do with
this. What else?

>The plural endings are more controversial, but 3pl. *-enti or *-onti >was
>perhaps common to all conjugations in the active voice.

Good. Then I'm free, based on external Nostratic evidence, to suspect that
the 1pp endings in *-w- (*-wes/*-wen) originally played a part in stative
conjugation... and I guess in IIa conjugation like *k^onk- too (1pp
*k^onkweni ?).

- gLeN

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com