From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 38524
Date: 2005-06-11
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:I you wish to call an athematic verb semi-thematic, then I
>> 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.