Re: [tied] -hi, -mi

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > First, -h(i) is does not mark a tense; it indicates a voice.
> > >
> > > Secondly, why do you not explain how Jasanoff showed this. I
> have
> > not read him but I doubt strenuously whether he could do this.
> > >
> >
> > Basically he goes through a number of existing Hittite hi-

paradigm

> > verbs plus their other-IE cognates and shows that the hi-
> paradigms
> > might as well have been the orinal for that verb in PIE. It
> involves a
> > lot of details for each verb. I suggest you read him yourself.
>
> Can you point to the story of a verb that is such that the hi-
> conjugation needs to be accepted as PIE, and the classical verbal
> system known from Greek and Vedic will not do? I have not found

such

> a story, not even with Jasanoff's help.
>

I think Jasanoff's line of reasoning is that it's futile to search
for the common origin of Hittite hi-conjugation, perfect, middle and
thematic 1st sg in any of those categories themselves, so I think he
would reject your question. But if I may rephrase it, I might have
an answer: the Germanic preterito-presentic verbs show that that
common paradigm (whatever one chooses to call it) existed in use as
present tense.


Torsten