From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36529
Date: 2005-03-01
>> If we compare the middle/perfect/hi-conjugation endings withNo.
>> what we see in Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, Uralic, Chukchi,
>> etc., we would expect the following endings:
>>
>> 1. *-h2
>> 2. *-th2
>> 3. *-0
>> 3. *-(e)r
>>
>> The actual PIE endings have an added element *-e- (*-o- in
>> the middle, but still *-a- after *h2), which comes after the
>> personal endings:
>>
>> 1. *-h2-a, 2. *-th2-a, 3. *-e, 3. M. *-ro- (*-nto-)
>>
>> My suggestion is that this *-e somehow turns the stative "I
>> am" (with *-h2 as subject) into a verbal form meaning "it is
>> to me" = "I have [it]" (with *-e presumably the subject, and
>> *-h2- the indirect object).
>>
>
>
>= the augment?
>If yes, it is something that may be both pre- andNo, because the other persons aren't monosyllabic without
>suffixed, eg. a pre-/postposition meaning "after" (if the -o- verbal
>form is a participle)? I recall Armenian restricting the augment to
>3rd person; 'eber' (or the like, by memory!), would it be because
>the augment was suffixed in the two other persons?