[tied] Re: -s -> -i

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:07:08 -0000, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>

wrote:

>
> >--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:35:10 -0000, "tgpedersen"

<tgpedersen@...>

> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >So after the -i spread to other conjugations, it was found not

to be

> >> >good enough in the conjugation it came from? Hm! But your

proposal

> >> >doesn't explain that after all this reshuffle in Romance,

somehow

> >> >West Romance ends up with all the -s'es and East Romance with

the

> >> >vowels.
> >>
> >> As I said, final -s was lost in East Romance (> y after stressed

vowel, > 0

> >> after unstressed), so it would have been hard indeed for East

Romance to end up

> >> with all the s'es.
> >Circular. Final -s was lost in East Romance because there was a

rule

> >that told it to go away? But why did the -s/-V follow the front

line

> >of Justinian's empire?
>
> Haven't got a clue, given that the loss of -s in East Romania dates

from the 2nd

> century.
>

Ah, so the East Romans started it. So much more reason for West
Romans to keep their -s'es once the war started.

BTW I noted that Spanish a-stem ipf. endings are rather similar to
Gothic regular past endings. Maybe they don't call them Godos for
nothing.

>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

Torsten