Re: [tied] -hi, -mi

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

>
> Basically he suggests that the hi-conjugation was much more
> widespread, and that is the point of the book. He does it on a verb-

by-

> verb (or verb group by verb group) basis, so it's a question of

being

> convinced in each case. Part of the reason I like his idea is that

if

> the mi-conjugation arose as a dependent "absolute ablative"-type
> clause, I need another conjugation for the finite verb to be in
> existence at that time.

Then we can kill two birds with one stone by saying no. Nice bargain.

Jens