From: willemvermeer
Message: 35618
Date: 2004-12-23
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
I have a small and probably stupid question for Jens, who writes:
> They [never mind what, WV] had different forms 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.
How do you reconcile the assumption that *-éye-, *-eyé- and *-i-ye-,
yielded Slav. -i- with the nom. pl. of the msc. i-stems -Ije < *-eyes?
I'm sorry about this, the answer is probably obvious, but I don't
seem to see it.
Willem