[tied] Re: sum

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:51:34 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >> >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.
>
> We do: there is the augmentless injunctive.

Sorry, all I have is Burrow. How is it stressed?

>
> >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.
>
> That explanation is already known: -Css and -Cst become -C
> in Vedic. Verbs ending in a vowel have 2/3sg. in -s (< -ss,
> -st).
>

Takes care of two thirds...


Torsten