Re: [tied] Re: Active / Stative

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:20:20 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard
Rasmussen <jer@...> wrote:

>On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>>
>> There was no early reduction -yy- > -y-, otherwise we would
>> have had *isto:(s) instead of isti:us.
>
>Why do you persist when it has already been conceded that there is a
>zone of analogy in it? Surely isti:us can only be reconciled with the
>sy-based derivation of the a:-subjunctive if its ending has been restored
>on the model of the eiius type. I have already said that this is
>necessary, just as Gothic antharai and blindai are analogical on thai.
>This is a "problem" of the most trivial kind. With this dose of
>commonplace analogy it seems indeed possible to assume that *-sy- yields
>-yy- after the first (short?) vowel of a word, and *-y- after non-first
>vowel (mora). That's all it takes, Anders Joergensen has pointed out.

I have conceded nothing. Since the form is isti:us, not the
*isto:s required by the proposed soundlaw nor the *istuiius
required by analogy, the easiest solution, as far as I'm
concerned, is that the Latin (and inded Italic)
a:-subjunctive (and preterite) simply doesn't involve *-asy-
at all, but *-a:- (*-eh2-), like the a:-present (*-a:-y-).

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