Re: sum

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

> > 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.

So now *H1esmi is PIE also all of a sudden? We're getting closer. I
now wonder how you can know that *H1esmi represents a simplified
paradigm in comparison with the presumed ancestor forms of Lat. sum.
If sum does not *have to* be an archaism there can be no such
knowledge. And I have shown a perfectly viable avenue for *H1esmi to
end up as Latin sum. Ergo there is no PIE semithematic paradigm
which had no other serious basis than that one form.

Jens