[tied] Re: sum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Further, who would want to press a verb for 'be' into a new and
> > complicated mould, such as that of the semi-thematic paradigm?

What

> > purpose would be served by that?
>
> Who would have wanted to complicate the paradigm of 'to be' in

Polish?

>
> 1sg. jestem < jest (3sg.!) + jes'm' (the original 1sg.)
> 2sg. jestes' < jest + jes'
> 3sg. jest
> 1pl. jestes'my < jest + jesmy (why not *sa,s'my?)
> 2pl. jestes'cie < jest + jes'cie
> 3pl. [surprise!] sa,
>
> Who would have wanted to complicate the present-tense conjugation

of 'to

> be' in German by mixing <bin> with b-less forms? What's "purpose"

does

> <are> serve in in English?
>
> People don't _plan_ such things. They try to make sense of the

forms

> they are exposed to when learning their mother tongue, and

sometimes

> they fail to analyse them correctly, so they missegment morphemes,
> confuse or blend words, overgeneralise, fall prey to false

analogies,

> etc. As Jens pointed out, in allegro forms *e was more likely to

be

> syncopated than *o, so the semithematic paradigm was produced by a
> phonetic process affecting frequently used verb forms. At some

point the

> new generation of Latin speakers heard [fert] much more frequently

than

> *[feret], so they assumed the former to be the underlying form,

just

> like the present-day speakers of English treat <every> as

disyllabic.

>

You must think I'm an idiot. Of course I know that, like everyone
else.

> > Schmalstieg, if I understand him
> > correctly, thinks the semi-thematic paradigm (*bhro: *bhers

*bhert

> > *bhromos *bhertis *bhront) was the original one and the thematic

one

> > a generalisation of it.
>
> I won't spoil Jens's fun by explaining why this is untenable. I'm

sure

> he'll demolish the idea with gusto :)
>

All Jens had to say was that the semi-thematic paradigm is rare.
Schmalstieg quotes Meillet as saying that comparative grammar should
use anomalies, ie. survivals, rather than regular forms. I second
that.


Torsten