[tied] Re: sum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> pielewe wrote:
>
> > I don't want to suggest that competent reconstruction on the

basis of

> > _all_ attestations would really yield *sUmI, though. Absence of

*U is

> > abundantly attested, for instance, in Novgorod birchbark letters
> > beginning in the first half of the twelfth century, e.g. 119,

which is

> > written in dialect.
>
> Cf. Old Polish jes'm', enclitic -(e)s'm' < *(j)esmI, eventually

reduced

> to -(e)m- in Middle and Modern Polish. A Proto-Slavic yer in *sUmI

would

> have yielded OPol. sem (totally unknown). There is a _secondary_

prop

> vowel in Czech jsem, etc., regular in this position.

So true. And if there had been an OPol. sem (which there isn't) then
it would have contained a secondary prop vowel too.


Torsten