From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 33746
Date: 2004-08-10
>On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:20:20 +0200 (MET DST), Jens ElmegaardWhich is another reason I'm sceptical about Jørgensen's
>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-).
>