--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> I had wanted to ask you about your thoughts on the origin of
> the ê/i type in Balto-Slavic. Jasanoff says that your
> thoughts are (independently) similar to his: barytonic 3pl.
> -n.ti > -inti and then spread of -i- (Slav. i:-, after
> iterative/causatives) to the other persons. Jasanoff's
> brief account doesn't really convince me, maybe you can
> explain it better.
I have considered the Slavic situation the result of a reduction of
the number of types. There were quite many types that formed a 1sg
in -y-o:, viz.:
*-h1-yo: (stative), *-éyo: (caus.-iter.), *-eyó: (denom. from o-
stems), *-i-yó: (denom. from i-stems). They had different froms in
the other persons, *-h1-ye-, *-éye-, *-eyé-, *-i-ye-, the three last
of which developed into Slav. -i-, which was subsequently
generalized to serve also with the stative e:-verbs.
There is a further type of importance, viz. old perfects like
bojati 'be afraid' (*boj-ê- from *bhi-bhóyH-, Ved. bibhá:ya) which
was of course athematic and had a 3pl in -r or -nt, both of which
would produce an extra -i-. I have this basic idea from Jasanoff
(who used it to explain the future from the s-aorist, but it looks
useful to me here too). After the extra -i- had been carried through
the paradigm the overall standardization changed it into Slavic -i-,
giving bojoN, bojitU. This unites Lithuanian -i- and Slavic -i- in
the present of verbs in -é:ti/-êti.
Jens