From: tgpedersen
Message: 36537
Date: 2005-03-01
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:21:25 +0000, tgpedersenBecause?
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >> If we compare the middle/perfect/hi-conjugation endings with
> >> 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?
>
> No.
>verbal
> >If yes, it is something that may be both pre- and
> >suffixed, eg. a pre-/postposition meaning "after" (if the -o-
> >form is a participle)? I recall Armenian restricting the augmentto
> >3rd person; 'eber' (or the like, by memory!), would it be becauseErh, excuse me, I didn't get that?
> >the augment was suffixed in the two other persons?
>
> No, because the other persons aren't monosyllabic without
> the augment.
>