Re: sum

> > No, it's from pre-PIE.
>
> But if it is NOT the form of the verb right before the split-up of
> the IE unity it is not relevant. You must derive the Latin facts
> from the IE protolanguage and not from some idealized prestage of

it.

It is _from_ pre-PIE. It survived in some verbs in PIE.

>
> If your paradigm is meant to conatin something that Latin could
> inherit, the other branches should also have been able to inherit
> the same, but have then consistently chosen not to show it.
>
>

Yes.

> > > one wonders what became of this paradigm which seems nowhere
> > > continued, and where the paradigm *bhérom *bhéres, *bhéret

etc.,

> > > which all the branches unanimously point to, came from.
> >
> > From PIE.
>
> So, if *bhérom *bhéres, *bhéret was PIE, why will you not accept
> these forms as the preforms valid for the Latin inflection also?

Because it's more satifactory (Occam) to construct both thematic and
athematic from semi-thematic than to construct semithematic from
thematic and letting thematic be an independent creation. Choosing
the first solution over the second reduces the number of entia by
one.


Torsten


Are

> you making up an Indo-Italic hypothesis??

No.

>
> Jens