From: tgpedersen
Message: 38367
Date: 2005-06-06
> > All Jens had to say was that the semi-thematic paradigm is rare.should
> > Schmalstieg quotes Meillet as saying that comparative grammar
> > use anomalies, ie. survivals, rather than regular forms. Isecond
> > that.other
>
> That can hardly be extended to an anomaly unsupported by data from
> IE languages, and one for which a simple and plausible language-specific
> explanation is available. Otherwise you would have to insist thatI don't insist and I don't say 'must'. I always say 'might'. You're
> irregularities like go/went and person/people must be survivals.
> Thepeculiarity
> curious alternation of *e/*o in the thematic paradigm is a
> shared by several branches and so unlikely to have developedlocal
> independently. The semithematic pattern, on the other hand, is a
> oddity best explained as a local innovation.'Best', why, except by your preference?
>What generalisation would*bhr-o-nt > *bher-o-nt by regularisation of the root. *bher-t >
> have produced *bHer-e-t/*bHer-o-nt out of **bHer-t/**bHr-o-nt?
>To askvowel *e
> the most obvious questions, why is the "generalised" thematic
> in the allegedly innovated forms if the only models for itsinsertion
> had **-o-?By Jens' rule, whatever its phonological cause, that -e- is
> correspondence) recur in branch after branch, if it's post-PIE?As it would be if the semi-thematic paradigm (as per your fiat) was