--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" wrote:
[Miguel]
What other language has a present ptc. (gerund) in -nd-?
[Richard]
If the present participle had survived in Albanian, wouldn't it
show -nd-? As it is, I can only think of the Germanic languages.
[Marius]
Survived... where from?!
[Richard]
PIE *-ont-.
[Marius]
AFAIK, Albanian doesn't exhibit that (I can think e.g. at Pokorny
1282 which suggest rather PIE *mend- > Alb. ment, or #490 PIE *ent-
Alb. ent, int, there is no word suggesting eventual voicing of
PIE /t/ in Albanian and I never saw such a law).
[Richard] (new)
See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18573 .
[Miguel]
What other language has verbal forms (pqpf.conj.) in -assem, etc.
[Richard]
-ss- has degeminated in Romanian, so it looks a rather like a
thematic sigmatic aorist. Sanskrit again.
For Sanskrit _dis'_ 'point', we have the thematic sigmatic aorist
adik- -s.am, -s.ah., -s.at, -s.a:ma, -s.ata, -s.an .
[Marius]
Still doesn't exhibit -(s)se-.
[Richard] (new)
Because of the Indic merger of /e/, /a/, /o/ to /a/. The bare
thematic conjugation in Romanian is the -e conjugation.
Incidentally, do you apply the Latin conjugation numbering to
Romanian?
[Miguel]
What other language mixes s-aorists with true perfects?
[Richard]
How can you tell that the Romanian simple perfect derives from the
PIE perfect?
[Marius]
He does not say that.
[Richard]
I dispute that.
[Marius]
You shouldn't. Miguel stressed indirectly what I wrote above:
[Richard] (new)
I dispute that Miguel did not say that the Romanian simple perfect
derives from the PIE perfect, i.e. I claim that he did say that the
Romanian simple perfect derives from the PIE perfect.
[Marius]
(Daco-)Romanian 1st & 2nd plural were analogically rebuilt (as
already pointed out) after dialectal split, with -rã- of the 3rd
plural emerging as plural marker. Only the 3rd plural, with -rã
instead of etymological -ru can be seen as analogical reconstruction
before Common Romanian, by internal reorganization of the paradigm
in PBR or by reproducing the pqpf regular ending. So Romanian
perfect doesn't reproduce Latin pqpf for the 1st & 2nd plural (as
even ancient texts still preserve etymological forms) and only for
the 3rd person there is something to explain -- but not the /r/
(which is there in Latin perfect), only the final vowel (which can
be perfectly well explained through analogy with other PBR verbal
times, not necessarily through 3rd plural of Latin pqpf indicative,
a time which did not really resist in PBR).
Please do explain the analogy.
Also, what was the 'etymological form' of the 2pl. of the simple
perfect? I'm wondering if it explains the form of the 2s.
Richard.