From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36544
Date: 2005-03-01
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:Because the augment comes before, not after. Also, it has a
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:21:25 +0000, tgpedersen
>> <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.
>
>Because?
>> >If yes, it is something that may be both pre- andberi berer eber berak` berêk` (-ik`) berin
>> >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?
>>
>
>> No, because the other persons aren't monosyllabic without
>> the augment.
>>
>
>Erh, excuse me, I didn't get that?