From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 30803
Date: 2004-02-07
>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:Of course I don't.
>>
>> No. I showed that you were trying to compare Romanian a:-stems with
>> Lithuanian thematics.
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/23608
>
>Look Miguel, you sustain that the II Latin conjugation was generlised
>over all in "s" droping Romance, aka Italian and Romanian.
>So, let's see the following table:Leaving palatalization aside, the expected and actual endings are:
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Due inheritance < Latin : (-u), - i, -e, - im, -iTi , -(u)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> | | | | | |
>Conj I ( a- stem) : -(u), - i, -ã, - ãm, -aTi , -ã
>Conj II,(ea- stem) : -(u), - i, -e, - em, -eTi , -e
>Conj III,( e- stem) : -(u), - i, -e, - em, -eTi, , -e
>Conj IV,( i- stem) : -(u), - i, -e, - im, -iTi, , -e
> | | | | | |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------PIE as reconstructed is in fact:
>PIE as reconstructed : *-o , *- e, *-et, *-VmVs, *-VtV(s), *-Vnt
>----------------------------------------------------------------------