Re: sum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> You don't mean this, do you?
>

Actually I _am_ serious. I can't see why PIE can't have had the same
situation as Serbo-Croatian, with a formal (with *somi) and an
informal (with *h1esmi) paradigm, just as Queen Victoria didn't
necessarily inflect her verbs the same way communicating with her
subjects as some of her subjects did communicating with the natives
in various colonies.


Torsten