--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> >*-h1-yo: (stative), *-éyo: (caus.-iter.), *-eyó: (denom. from o-
> >stems), *-i-yó: (denom. from i-stems).
>
> And plain *-yó:.
>
> >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.
>
> Yes, but what I don't get is how a supposed *-h1-yé- didn't
> merge with *-yé- (or, alternatively, why *yé-verbs didn't
> acquire an i-present).
The corresponding Lith. inflection has athematic -i-. One can derive
that from the perfect, as OCS vêdeNtU from *vaid-i-nti <- *wid-r.,
cf. the propagation of -i- in OPruss. 1pl waidimmai, 2pl waiditi. It
should not be held against the explanation that OCS vêmU, vêste, and
of course the sg. forms OPruss. waisi, waist, show that, in this
particularly tenacious verb, the generalization of -i- was not pan-
BSl., for it does not exclude that in other, more amenable, verbs it
was. Some BSl. e:-verbs are based on perfects, most clearly perhaps
OCS bojati 'fear'. I consider it quite likely that the stem of 3sg
prs. boitU had a history much like that of OPruss. waid-i-.
Jens