Re: [tied] Re: -i, -u

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 12:01:28 -0700 (PDT),
enlil@... wrote:

>
>
>Me:
>>As for Finno-Ugric, I'm not aware of any participle turned verb.
>
>Miguel:
>> Estonian, present:
>> [...]
>> 3. kirjuta-b <---
>> [...]
>> Present participle *-Ba/*-Bä ~ *-pa/*-pä.
>
>If we also have in Estonian the following...
>
> mina tulin
> sina tulid
> tema tuli
>
>... with an _endingless_ 3ps

The preterite, of course, is not built on the present
participle.

>then it would seem that we can deduce
>what happened to the 3ps. Having become endingless

"Having become" endingless? I see no reason whatsoever to
think there ever was an ending here.

The 3rd. person pronominal marker is absent from the
preterite, the present and the conditional. It appears only
in the passive, middle, reflexive and imperative (*-sen,
*-zen > -hen, pl. *-set ~ *-zet).

>, it shows the bare
>participle marker *-pa. So of course it "LOOKS" like a participle simply
>became a 3ps verb but unless we _actually_ have such a case

We do actually have such a case here.

>, please
>spare us the deception. As far as I can see, verbs can be conjugated
>with personal endings with the so-called "participle" endings which
>smell to me like the same sorts of modal "extensions" that IE has
>between the verb stem and personal endings. This isn't a clear case
>of participle-turned-verb at all.

Yes it is.


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