From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 39664
Date: 2005-08-18
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:No, the infinitive suffix is -ti (< *-tei). The supine has
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:49:48 +0000, tgpedersen
>> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>>
>> >Checking out the article, I discovered I need better glasses.
>Replace
>> >all U's with I's in my posting (odd, I thought Slavic 3rd sg.
>had -U?).
>>
>> In OCS and what underlies modern Russian pronunciation. Old
>> Russian and e.g. modern Ukrainian have expected -(e)tI.
>>
>> In general, we find forms with -0, with -tU and with -tI in
>> Slavic (also in the 3pl.). -tI is the expected reflex of
>> PIE *-ti. Zero is the expected reflex of PIE *-t, the
>> secondary (past/injunctive or subjunctive) ending, and I
>> believe that -tU is also a regular outcome of PIE *-t.
>> Compare similar alternations in the personal pronoun (j)a ~
>> (j)azU, and in prepositions such as o ~ ob ~ obU. In Old
>> Novgorodian, the forms with -0 are generally used in a modal
>> sense, while the forms with -tI are used in
>> declarative/indicative context (Zaliznjak, p. 119-120), so
>> that fits in nicely.
>
>
>I had the passing thought that -tU was chosen since -tI was used for
>infinitives (although to a different stem). Does that make sense?
>Another thing: Glen brought up the example of Makudoradu, theYes (not the Russians, the Proto-Slavs).
>Japanese transcription of McDonald's, which reminded me of the fact
>that the way the Japanese syllabaries are pronounced. The unstressed
>i's palatalise the preceding consonant and then both unstressed i's
>and u's disappea; in other words, they behave like front and back
>jer. Are you saying the Russians used back jer (U) as a filler (as
>in the MacDonald example)?