Re: [tied] Re: Slavic ptc.praes.act.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:58:13 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer
<mcv@...> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:04:32 +0000, elmeras2000
><jer@...> wrote:
>
>>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>>
>>[JER:]
>>> >, and the soft counterpart of -a
>>> >is -e^/-e (zeme^, dus^e), so I can't really see why myje, mluve^
>>> >could not analogically be given a hard counterpart nesa.
>>[MCV:]
>>> I find it hard to believe. Why would a masc/neuter nom. sg.
>>> gerund *nesy (znaje, chvale) be analogically reshaped after
>>> the NA plural (c.q. G.sg.) of feminine nouns? It makes no
>>> sense.
>>
>>That's not what I mean. I mean, ja-stems end in -e^/-e in the nom.sg.,
>>and a-stems end in -a. So a nom.sg. in -e^/-e of soft-type
>>prs.ptc.act. could develop a hard counterpart -a.
>
>You mean post-pr^ehláska? [I don't have a Czech historical
>grammar, so I'm not quite sure when that is dated?]
>
>In that case, isn't it peculiar that Russian, Czech and Old
>Polish converged, completely independently, on a gerund in
>-a?

By the way, I just noticed that Russian has three irregular
gerunds: (-)stavaja, (-)znavaja and (-)davaja. These are of
course from (-)stavat', (-)znavat' and (-)davat' (not from
stat', znat' or dat'), and the irregularity consists in the
retention of the element -va-, which is otherwise not found
in forms of the present system. So I'm not sure if these
forms can be interpreted somehow as supporting my hypothesis
that -a comes from *-wo:t(s).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...