[tied] Re: sum

> >> Different kind of semithematic, though.
> >>
> >
> >Jasanoff wants to derive the 'inner-IE' (IE minus Anatolian,

minus

> >Tocharian) s-aorist from a 'pre-sigmatic aorist' (partly with
> >stative endings):
> >
> >*´-h2e
> >*´-th2e
> >*´-s-t
> >
> >*´-me-
> >*´-te
> >*´-r.s
> >
> >If he is right, and I am right, then the 'inner-IE' substitution
> >*-s-óm
> >*´-s-s
> >*´-s-t
> >
> >*-sómV
> >*-s-te
> >*-sónt
>
>
> >happened at a time when the semi-thematic paradigm was alive as a
> >model, ie after Hittite and Tocharian left.

> There is no such apradigm.

That's why I put asterisks in front. As a matter of fact, you could
say the same of any reconstructed paradigm: they don't exist. But we
have better or worse reasons for assuming they once might have. And
what are your objections here?


Jasanoff actually has (p. 205)
*´-s-m.
*´-s-s
*´-s-t

..
..
*´-s-n.t

but he keeps proposing ablaut for his paradigms, distributed on sg.
vs. pl., with no explanation as to cause. I thought it would be nice
to fix that by putting in a mechanism to generate ablaut in the
paradigm. Also, my proposal follows the accent of the Sanskrit s-
aorist, at least in the sg.


Torsten