Re: [tied] Re: Vrddhi in sigmatic aorist

On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 12:38:24 -0000, tgpedersen@... wrote:

>--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:47:19 -0000, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
>> <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have of course suggested that the *x in the loc.pl. (*-sW-i ~
>> *-sW-u) and the 2sg.pres.them.act. -es^I (*-e-sWi) have the same
>> explanation. I would also want the dem. pronoun *so ~ *to- to have
>> been originally *sWo- ~ *to-, but of course Slavic offers no
>evidence
>> for that, because the nom.sg.masc. has been regularized to <tU>. Or
>> does it? Slavic is known to have used postfixed pronouns as a kind
>of
>> definite article (e.g. OCS rodU-sI > rodosI, rabU-tU > rabotU, and
>of
>> course novU-jI > novyj).
>
>Is the Bulgarian definite article -&t/-ta/-to descended directly from
>this (by regularisation?) or is it a later innovation?

I'm not entirely sure in which context OCS -tU and -sI occur. They
are certainly not used as a matter of course to translate the Greek
definite article. They may indicate an incipient tendency to use
postfixed definite articles, a tendency which was later developed more
fully in Bulgarian and Northern Russian.