Re: jestem

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- 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.
>

Erh, OK. I agree that is difficult to understand the speakers of of
community that would do such a thing to their language.

If we look at

sum
es
est

sumus
estis
sunt

it's interesting that three types of binary properties follow each
other:

stress
o-grade
position before voiced sound

vs.

no stress
e-grade
position before unvoiced sound

Of these properties, the one you can't change is the (un)voicedness
of the following sound.
Therefore I assume it is cause, the others effects.

Such a paradigm, BTW, causes trouble in the 1st person
sg. -óm
pl. -óme
Slavic might want to clarify this situation by stressing the extra
syllable in the pl.

pl. -omé

which becomes dreary in the long run, so stress jumps two syllable
forward to the root

pl. ´-ome

and now we have a Russian mobile paradigm: stress on the suffix in
1st sg. and 3rd pl., on the root elsewhere.

Latin on the other hand got its penultimate-antepenultimate rule, so

sg. ´-om
pl. -óm-V

End of problem.


Torsten