Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> Yes, but is it the same *-je/o-? English has <-s> in plural nouns and in
> the 3sg.pres. of verbs, but it isn't the same morpheme, whether
> synchronically or etymologically. The nominal *-jó- forms adjectives
> derived from thematic stems, so it makes sense to analyse it as *-e/o- +
> *-é/ó-, like Jens does. One could toy with the possibility that the
> verbal *-jé/ó- was likewise the result of "double thematisation" in
> pre-PIE times, but I can't think of any independent motivation for such
> an analysis. Crucially, the *-jé/ó- verbs correlate pairwise with
> _athematic_ stems, not with simple thematic ones.
An afterthought: it seems to me that traces of a *-j- reflecting a
reduced thematic vowel are lurking in the causative/iterative stem type,
if ultimately denominative. This is what I imagine may have happened:
The derivational basis for the type is the deverbative adjective/noun --
a thematic formation with "the Rasmussen prefix", e.g. pre-PIE *O-lgH-V-
from *legH- (*V = the thematic vowel), cf. *logH-o- '(place for) lying'.
To form a denominative present, we add *-jé/ó- and get what follows:
*legH-
*[O-lgH-V]-jé/ó- Input
*O-lgH-j-jé/ó- [thematic vowel reduction]
*O-lgH-ej-jé/ó- [a prop vowel: *-j- follows a cluster]
*O-lgH-éj-je/o- [stress retraction]
*O-lgH-éje/o- [suffix contraction]
*lOgH-éje/o- [prefix --> infix]
*logHéje/o- [*O vocalisation]
... and in the Narten subtype:
*swe:p-
*[O-swep-V]-jé/ó- Input
*O-swep-j-jé/ó- [thematic vowel reduction]
--- [no prop vowel after a single consonant]
*O-swép-j-je/o- [stress retraction]
*O-swép-je/o- [suffix contraction]
*swéOp-je/o- vel sim. [prefix --> infix]
*swó:p-je/o- [*O vocalisation, contraction]
Piotr