From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 33827
Date: 2004-08-23
>And this "point" is based on what? The suffix *-pV is the
>Miguel:
>> The preterite, of course, is not built on the present
>> participle.
>
>Of course, you'd probably say it's built on a "preterite participle".
>Whatever. My point is that endings like *-pa and *-ya aren't "participle"
>endings to begin with in Uralic.
>They are modal endingsThey occur in the indicative, so there's nothing "modal"
>attached toWhat are you talking about? Action nouns in *-tó-?
>verb stems that can mark nouns in the nude, or mark verbs with pronominal
>endings attached. That doesn't mean that the 3ps derives from a noun
>or a participle.
>
>At best, the action noun and an endingless 3ps, both with seperate
>origins, had merged. I see little distinguishing an action noun
>from the 3ps aorist in Mid IE except for *-a.
>In fact, if Proto-Boreal had developped an alergy against words endingAs I said:
>in most consonants except nasals and *-t and fought against it by adding
>a vowel as I've proposed long ago to explain Uralic's syllable structure,
>then naturally action nouns formed with "participle" endings together
>with 3ps verbs that previously had ended in *-a would merge and be
>identical. This is probably why the 3ps developped *-sa out of a
>pre-existing demonstrative to avoid confusion.
>
>
>> "Having become" endingless? I see no reason whatsoever to
>> think there ever was an ending here.
>
>There was *-sa in Uralic.