Re: [tied] Re: PIE verbs (6) -- no use pretending they're simple

From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 7325
Date: 2001-05-14

On Sun, 13 May 2001 16:32:16 -0000, MCLSSAA2@... wrote:

>--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>> The remaining endings ... In their early history they were probably
>> prone to dialectal variation and analogical restructuring:
>> 1pl. *-me-s(-i), *-mo-s or *-me-N(-i), preterite *-me(-N)
>> (the thematic vowel was *-o- before this ending)
>Is there any chance that in one version or stage of PIE, one form of
>the 1pl was "we including you" and another form was "we excluding

There's a chance, of course, but I don't see any compelling evidence
for it. Perhaps the 1pl. middle ending *-me(s)dh- [which I adduced as
evidence for dative incorporation (1pl. sub. + 2pl. ind. obj.) in the
"middle' forms] can be analyzed as a combination of 1st (*-me(s)) +
2nd person (*-dh-/*-th3- vel simile). First plural inclusive forms are
often more or less tranparently derived from such amalgamations.

The plural forms of the active conjugation were, in my analysis,
originally built up agglutinatively out of the personal pronouns (like
the singular forms) + a plural marker **-an(V) (not seen outside the

*-0-an (+ *-t)

This, after the soundlaw **-n > *-r (except after *-w-) must have

*-mwen *-mweni
*-twer *-tweni
*-er *-enti

This is the system as attested in Anatolian (*-wen, *-ten, *-er;
*-weni, *-teni, *-enti), except for the analogical restitution of 2pl.
*-ten. The question is: why was this reasonably regular system
reshaped in the non-Anatolian languages? The mismatch between *-men
and *-ter/*-er, and between "present" and past forms must have had
something to do with it, as well as a tendency to replacement
*-en/*-er by the more common plural morpheme *-es (Lat., Arm.
*-mes/*-mos, *-tes). But the details are unclear.

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal