Re: sum

> Thanks for the clarification. My main objection is that the oldest
> thematic structure with accented thematic vowel is hardly ever
> found. What is found in abundance however is the structure

*bhérom,
*bhéres,
*bhéret,
*bhérome,
*bhérete,
*bhéront. Do you mean to say

> that each branch just chose *independentl* to change

*bhróm,
*bhérs
*bhért,
*bhróme,
*bhérte,
*bhrónt

>into that?

By our modified rule, that would begin with
*bhróm,
*bhórs
*bhórt,
*bhróme,
*bhórte,
*bhrónt
passing over
*bheróm,
*bhórs
*bhórt,
*bheróme,
*bhórte,
*bherónt

to either
*bhérom,
*bhérs
*bhért,
*bhérome,
*bhérte,
*bhéront
and then
*bher-mi,
*bher-si
*bher-ti,
*??,
*??,
*bher-enti

or
*bhe-róm,
*bhe-rés
*bhe-rét,
*bhe-róme,
*bhe-réte,
*bhe-rónt

shifting accent to
*bhé-rom,
*bhé-res
*bhé-ret,
*bhé-róme,
*bhé-rete,
*bhé-ront


They went in one of these two directions. Or both. Or retained the
semi-thematic paradigm, all in smaller or larger portions.

>If they did not hold
> language planning meetings about it, why did they manage to make it
> so similar?

Is there a better way to make sense of such a mess? The Slavs even
forgot to fix 1st sg., sticking instead with the old 'berú' (BTW,
it's 3rd pl bérut, not berút, but it does look like they should go
together; cf
"can"
mogú
móz^es^I
móz^et

móz^em
móz^ete
mógut
)

>I think this is now something like a miracle whcih
> really needs an explanation.

I don't. It's the best way to fix that mobile paradigm.

>If the thematic structure had already
> been reached in PIE, however, there is no such problem.

Which would increase the initial number of entia to be explained.
That's a problem.

>That's what
> decided the issue for me after much consideration.

I am glad that was all. Blame it on the weather but I don't see a
problem?


Torsten