Re: [tied] Re: sum

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:02:21 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
>> >> >I thought it would be nice
>> >> >to fix that by putting in a mechanism to generate ablaut in
>the
>> >> >paradigm. Also, my proposal follows the accent of the Sanskrit
>s-
>> >> >aorist, at least in the sg.
>> >>
>> >> No it doesn't. The s-aorist has root stress throughout.
>> >> Perhaps you mean the se-aorist, which has theme-stress
>> >> throughout.
>> >>
>> >
>> >From your own notes:
>> >Slavic
>> >-xU, -sU
>> >-0
>> >-0
>> >
>> >-xomU, -somU
>> >-ste
>> >-s^e~, -se~
>> >
>> >-xove^, -sove^
>> >-sta
>> >-ste
>> >
>> >"
>> >The first person has been thematized (*-sW-o-m, *sW-o-mos, *sW-o-
>> >we:), the others are athematic...
>> >"
>>
>> The first persons come from the se-aorist, the 2/3 persons
>> pl. and du. come from the s-aorist, the 2/3sg. com from the
>> root aorist or the imperfect.
>
>...he said authoritatively. Why do you think that?

The first persons have a thematic vowel and end-stress, the
2/3 persons pl. and du. have no tematic vowel and
end-stress, the 2/3sg. have root-stress and sometimes a
thematic vowel (-e), sometimes not.

>> >TP: now add a thematized 3rd pl and you got a semi-thematic
>paradigm
>> >
>> >and
>> >
>> >Sanskrit
>> >á-bha:r-s.-am
>> >á-bha:r-s.-0
>> >á-bha:r-s.-0
>> >
>> >etc. Full grade of suffix in 1st person, zero-grade otherwise.
>>
>> The first person is also zero grade: -m. > -am
>>
>
>It can't be < *-om ?

Not here. The thematic form would have been *bhars.ám
(*bhersóm), not bhá:rs.am (*bhé:rsm.). Wrong Ablaut, wrong
stress.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...