Re: [tied] Re: sum

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 08:31:57 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:27:35 +0000, tgpedersen
>> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I was wondering: are there any examples of athematic verbs
>with
>> >> >secondary endings (ie. *-C-m *-C-s *-C-t ... *-C-nt) ?
>> >>
>> >> Of course.
>> >>
>> >> >And to
>> >> >anticipate a possible 'no': then such a paradigm would, to
>remain
>> >> >pronounceable proceed to *-C-om *-C-s *-C-t ... *-C-ont
>> >>
>> >> C-m., -C-s, -C-t. PIE had syllabic resonants.
>> >>
>> >> The 3pl. ath. ending *-ént(i) was only reduced in acrostatic
>> >> and reduplicated verbs ('-n.t(i)).
>> >>
>> >
>> >In other words, we have here an example of PIE -N.- > Latin -oN-
>>
>> No. PIE *-m(.) was, as you said, a _secondary_ ending, to
>> be found in the aorist or imperfect. Latin maintains the
>> *-m in the imperfect (but always preceded by -a:-: amabam,
>> eram), not in the merged aorist/perfect.
>>
>
>In that case the argument hinges on whether the Latin present
>endings continue the primary or the secondary endings.

They are primary endings, secondarily reduced to look like
secondary endings. The 1sg. -o: is clearly primary. So is
the 3sg. -it (< *-eti), because *-et gives OLat. -ed.
According to Sihler, the 3pl. also points to *-Vnti, because
*-nt would have given (and in Oscan gives) -ns.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...