From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 33756
Date: 2004-08-10
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:21:40 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer
> <mcv@...> wrote:
>
> >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)
>
> Which is another reason I'm sceptical about Jørgensen's
> solution. The Oscan-Umbrian reflex of *-sy- is apparently
> not *-yy- or *-y- or zero, but -ys- (as in Old Lepontic):
> *-esyo > *-eyso > -eís (U: -es, -er).
>
> >a:-subjunctive (and preterite) simply doesn't involve *-asy-
> >at all, but *-a:- (*-eh2-), like the a:-present (*-a:-y-).
> >
The effect of analogy could just as well be like this: *-to-syo- > *-toyo-
-> *-teyyo- (after *eyyo-, the prestage of eius) > *-teiyo- > *-ti:yo-. In
that case it works fine, why mustn't it? The derivation of Oscan -eis from
*-esyo is itself very far from being certain. If the classical explanation
as the ending of i-stems is correct, there are no real problems. I don't
see the point in just arbitrarily picking and choosing among remote
possibilities in such a way that morphologically sensible solutions become
impossible.
Jens