[tied] Re: *bhe-, -y, -w

>
> The imperfect seems to be based on a verbal form in -e:
> (*-eh1), either an instrumental or a "stative", I'm really
> unsure about what it is exactly, followed by the preterit of
> *bhuah2- "to be": ama:-e:-ba:- > a:ma:ba(:)-; de:le:-e:-ba:
> > de:le:ba(:)-; audi:-e:-ba:- > audie:ba(:)-; em-e:-ba:- >
> eme:ba(:)-). The same base is found in the Slavic imperfect
> (nes-e:-axU), exept that the auxiliary there is *h1es-
> (preterit *e-es-> e:s-).
>

I wasn't aware of any -h2- in *bhuah2-, I'm tempted to analyse it
*bhu- + -ah2- which makes it a factitive verb, and *bhu- some type
of adjectival form; w-participle? That would make *ama:-e:-bam "I am
made having been *ama:-e:-".

Another thing is that if Piotr's rule Bw- > B-, for B labial, is
right, then
*bhuah2- "be" = *bhah2- "appear"


Torsten