--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:
> I opposed the idea that a central verb as "to be" should be
pressed into
> a new and more complicated mould than the one it was already in.
You are overlooking the possibility that the presumed change from
*esmi *essi *esti *smos *stes *senti to *so(:)mi *ess(i) *est(i)
*somos *estes *sent(i) can have been felt and intended by speakers
as a _reduction_ of the irregularity. If the (allegro-based?)
syncopation from *fero *feress(i) *feret(i) *feromos *feretes *feront
(i) to *fero *fers fert *feromos *fertes *feront had already
happened and was thus available as a model, then the change *smos ->
*somos would only mean adoption of the ending -omos used by all
other verbs. The 3pl *sont > sunt would have followed all other
verbs too (edunt, legunt) and needs no explanation. The 2pl *stes >
*estes gives the same relationship to *ess *est as already exsisted
with fertis : fers fert. Only the zero-grade of sum is a bit odd
(supposing the Proto-Italic form *is* *so(:)m and not *eso(:)m).
Still, if the athematic forms stick together, why wouldn't the
thematic forms do the same? So, when the thematicized forms *somos
*sonti had zero-grade, why would the 1sg *esmi -> *eso(:)mi not also
introduce zero-grade? Note that all of these changes can be seen as
steps towards regularization of an aberrant paradigm, i.e. the exact
opposite of what you say you see in it. We do not have to agree with
the linguistic community that changed its language, we only need to
understand it.
Jens