[tied] Re: sum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 08:38:19 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Jasanoff grounds his assumption of ablauting presents in the

existence

> >of Narten presents ablauting /e/ vs. /e:/. Not having read the

article

> >I don't know by what devious strategem Narten obtains that
> >alternation; the forever quoted paradigm is Sanskrit 3rd sg

stáuti

> >(< *stéu-ti), 3rd pl. stuvánti (< *stu-ónti), no less semi-

thematic

>
> It's athematic.
>
> >than *hés-ti, *h1s-ónti, or *bhér-ti, *bhr-ónti, ie stressed -o-
> >before voiced sound, unstressed -e- elsewhere.
>
> You mean *stu-énti and *h1s-énti. The athematic 3pl. ending
> is *-enti, not *-onti (which is thematic one).
>

That is what would I would have meant, if I had thought they were
athematic which I clearly stated that I think they're not.
I mean *stu-ónti and *h1s-ónti, since I think they are semi-thematic.


Torsten