Re: sum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> That's a respectable objection. I do not think it really applies
> though, for the drift does indeed seem to be from disorder to an
> increased amount of order in Latin too. The athematic verbs in *-

mi

> take on *-o: from the productive type, so we get *eyo: and *edo: .
> For *esmi that is not so easy, for *eso: is the subjunctive >
> future, ans so the way out seems to have been *eso:mi for the
> indicative. Then there is an act of cleaning up the vowel grades.

In

> *somos *sonti, the zero-grade goes with the thematic form, but
> *eso:mi and *stes are contray to this sense of order; that can be
> remedied by changing them to *so:mi and *estes. The amount of

order

> achieved is considerable: Now all the semi-thematic verbs have
> parallel alternations: sum sumus sunt go together, as do edo:

edimus

> edunt, volo: volumus volunt, and even fero: ferimus ferunt, also

eo:

> ([?]*eyomos > *eomos > *eimus > i:mus) eunt - all being opposed to
> (original or homemade) athematic forms as es est estis, e:s e:st
> e:stis, vel (-> vi:s) vult vultis, fers fert fertis, i:s i:t

i:tis.

> This *has* been a change consisting in a reduction of disorder.
>

Ahem. A perfectly respectable athematic-abiding verb goes to the
minority vanishing semi-thematic paradigm, and that increases order?
You don't get my vote to be sheriff this time.


Torsten