Re: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:02:08 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer
<mcv@...> wrote:

>ap "a" ap b ap c
>
>sy"nU domU' vIr^xU
>sy"nu domu' vIrxu' (vIr^xu)
>sy"novi domo'vi vIr^xovi
>sy"nu domu' vIrxu'
>sy"nUmI domU'mI vIrxUmI'
>
>sy"nove domo've vIr^xove
>sy"ny domy' vIr^xy
>synovU' domo'vU vIrxovU'
>synUmU' domU'mU vIrxUmU'
>synUxU' domU'xU vIrxUxU'
>synUmi' domU'mi vIrxUmi'
>
>sy"ny domy' vIr^xy
>synovu' domo'vu vIrxovu'
>synUma' domo'va vIrxUma'

I can make this slightly less impalatable by amending the NA
pl./du. to *sy^nove, *sy^ny, *sy^ny. That way we would have
a class of words which were a.p. a in the sg., and a.p. c in
the plural, which is in the same class of irregularity as
verbs which are a.p. c in the present and a.p. a in the
aorist/infinitive system.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...