Torsten:
> Thank you for your presentation of yet another theory ;-)
No prob. I gots a million of 'em >;)
> The present-stem-as-participle theory is not mine, and it is
> supposed to hold for Finno-Ugric too [...]
Doesn't work. Since we have the indicative beside a _non-indicative_
without *-i, it's clear that it's not as simple as that. Both the
indicative and the non-indicative must derive from *i-less **VERBS**.
Given those facts, we can't simply say that the indicative is a
locative noun/adjective/whatever while the non-indicative was always
a verb and just leave it at that.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, about the nature of the indicative
that makes it any less "verb-ey" than the non-indicative. So this theory
is really based on nothing but a whim.
As for Finno-Ugric, I'm not aware of any participle turned verb. Sounds
just as suspect in FU or Uralic as it does in IE.
> Therefore, and since I don't have a Finnish textbook I looked in my
> Hungarian textbook. It does have personal suffixes, they can be
> attached, apart from nouns, also to participles, [...]
Yes? And? We also see Egyptian verbs marked with what appear to be
possessive markers. This happens a lot world-wide. It doesn't apply to
IE because it doesn't have possessive suffixes. The suffixes *-m, *-s
and *-t are exclusively _verbal_. That's it. So you have only your
imagination to go on.
= gLeN