[tied] Re: sum

From: tgpedersen
Message: 38565
Date: 2005-06-13

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> 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,
as in the semi-thematic paradigm

> the 2/3 persons pl. and du. have no thematic vowel and end-stress,
as in the semi-thematic paradigm, except for the 3rd pl.


> the 2/3sg. have root-stress and sometimes a
> thematic vowel (-e), sometimes not.
as in the semi-thematic paradigm

>
> >> >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.
>

All three are stressed on the augment, so we have no knowledge of
original stress. All three have vr.ddhi so that might be analogical
too. The one thing that needs an explanation is why supposed 1st sg
*-s-m. survived and 2nd *-s-s and 3rd *-s-t didn't. An original
*-s-óm
*´-s-s
*´-s-t
would explain that.


Torsten