Re: [tied] *es- "to be"

>From: "����� ���������" <ponaryad@...>
>
>Just a mere hypothesis...
>
>Doesn't *es- "to be" include the same *-s- that is the suffix found in
>sigmatic aorist and future? Than the primary root *e- can be compared with
>a plenty of similar Nostratic forms, e.g. Turkic e- (e-di/ e-r-di "was"
>etc.), Mongolic a- (a-mui "is" etc.), Finno-Ugric *e-/*o- (Komi e-m "there
>is", Fin. o-n < *o-m "is").

Well, *e- isn't much of an IE or PIE form. *H1es- works. We are pretty sure
that the laryngeal was there, so you need to figure out how to get H1e-
shoehorned into some kind pf PIE form. The problem, of course, being it just
doesn't look like a PIE root.

So, you need to get something like *H1eCs- -> *H1es-, where C is some
consonant. Of course some folks do reconstruct *H1s-, but that makes the
situation worse, not better.

>
>Any objections?
>
>==========
>Vadim Ponaryadov

I like the idea, but it doesn't seem to fit very well, given the shape of
the root