Re: sum

> > I don't get it.
>
> I do. First, it was
> *esmi *essi *esti *smos *stes *senti
> *fero: *feressi *fereti *feromos *feretes *feronti
>

Why is it so certain that the ablaut was divided along the line
sg./pl.? Is there any independent evidence for that, or does it just
look nice?

> which became (leaving put * for ease):
> esmi essi esti smos stes sonti
> fero: ferssi ferti feromos fertes feronti.
>
> "Be" takes over endings from "carry", cf. edo:, volo:, only 'I am'
> is so frequent that its *-mi is not given up, only superimposed:
>
> eso:mi essi esti somos stes sonti
> fero: ferssi ferti feromos fertes feronti
>

I understand. "I am" is so frequent that it won't give up an extra
syllable, but on the other hand not frequent enough to avoid
importing an extra one from an infrequent paradigm.

> Rearrangement of vowel grades: On the model of *somos, *sonti

forms

> with thematic -o- take stem /s-/, ergo *eso:mi > *so:mi. The

others

> go by *essi *esti and take /es-/, ergo *stes > *estes.
>
> That has now given
> *so:mi > sum
> *essi > es
> *esti > est
> *somos > sumus
> *estes > estis
> *sonti > sunt.
>
> That was not so very hard. It may therefore well be the truth.
>

First it was neatly sorted with e-grade in the sg., zero-grade in
the plural, then they modelled on each other and screwed up the
paradigm. I thought paradigms went from disorder cause by phonology
to attempted order by analogy?


Torsten