--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "÷ÁÄÉÍ ðÏÎÁÒÑÄÏ×" <ponaryad@...>
wrote:
> 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").
>
> Since the function of *-s- in IE sigmatic aorist and future seems
to transform continuative/iterative verbal stems into
momentative/inchoative ones, we may suppose that the primary copula
*e- "to be", when used with the *-s-, had to mean "to become", but
afterwards the former could disappeare, and than the latter began to
be used instead of it...
>
> This, of course, can explain, why in many IE branches (the most of
them!) *es- has no future or/and aorist forms, using instead
something like *bhu:-, primarily meaning "to grow". Cf. Rus. budu,
Lith. busiu "I shall be", Pers. budam, Lat. fui "I was" etc. -
everywhere present forms being from *es-. And even if the future and
aorist forms of the root *es- do exist, they tend to be not
sigmatic. This we see, for example, in Latin, where the future ero:
< *eso: is thematic vs. athematic present, and in Greek, where the
future esomai is thematic and middle vs. athematic and active
present.
>
> Any objections?
Yes, some. The aorist *-s- and the future *-H1s- are not identical
with each other. The latter may be formally identical with the root
*H1es- 'be', but what would it mean? Conceivably, *mén-&1s-o: 'I
shall think' could mean properly "a thinker - I shall be", supposing
a root-noun *men- to mean 'thinker'. But by what logic would a
reduplicated form of the presumed root-noun followed by the same
thematic form of the verb (with regularly reduced vocalism), i.e. a
collocation *mí-mn.-H1s-o:, have come to mean 'I wish to think'? I
do not see how this adds up in any sensible and insightful way.
Therefore my guess will be that it is not correct.
Jens