From: tgpedersen
Message: 38646
Date: 2005-06-15
> >am
> > The imperfect seems to be based on a verbal form in -e:
> > (*-eh1), either an instrumental or a "stative", I'm really
> > unsure about what it is exactly, followed by the preterit of
> > *bhuah2- "to be": ama:-e:-ba:- > a:ma:ba(:)-; de:le:-e:-ba:
> > > de:le:ba(:)-; audi:-e:-ba:- > audie:ba(:)-; em-e:-ba:- >
> > eme:ba(:)-). The same base is found in the Slavic imperfect
> > (nes-e:-axU), exept that the auxiliary there is *h1es-
> > (preterit *e-es-> e:s-).
> >
>
> I wasn't aware of any -h2- in *bhuah2-, I'm tempted to analyse it
> *bhu- + -ah2- which makes it a factitive verb, and *bhu- some type
> of adjectival form; w-participle? That would make *ama:-e:-bam "I
> made having been *ama:-e:-".And if Miguel's rule -k# > -x# holds then *bhax- = *bhak- > Latin
>
> Another thing is that if Piotr's rule Bw- > B-, for B labial, is
> right, then
> *bhuah2- "be" = *bhah2- "appear"
>