> You cannot make *H1ésmi
> > that, for (1) sum is not Anatolian, and (2) esmi is Hittite.
>
> Of course I can.
> a) Anybody could or would construct *h1és-mi from *hes-si etc
> sevaral languages far from each other. Did the natives decide at
> language conferences that Pidgin English should have no inflectio
> for person or number? But how did they then arrive at the same
> result?
> b) There might easily have been groups of PIE speakers using the
> proper semi-thematic paradigm for sum and slaves etc using the
> simplified h1es-mi paradigm.
>
>
Illustration:
In today's English, some people inflect
am
are
is
are
are
are
In several colonial English Pidgins, they inflect
is
is
is
is
is
is
These Pidgins arose during the British Empire which was led by Queen
Victoria.
Now how did Queen Victoria inflect this verb, in her proto-Pidgin
English language? Well obviously all these completely identical
Pidgin paradigms cannot have arisen indepedently on several
continents, and the irregular am, are, is paradigm I mentioned is
documented in only one language, namely present British English. It
is therefore very easy to reconstruct Queen Victoria's inflection
of 'to be'; it was
I is
you is
he is
we is
you is
they is
Impeccable linguistics.
Torsten