[tied] Re: IE thematic presents and the origin of their thematic vo

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> glen gordon wrote:
>
> > Yes. So just to clarify, can someone please explain
> > to me how one might determine whether a later thematic
> > durative like *bHer-e-ti is from a subjunctivized
> > Narten stem (ie: < (pre-)IE durative-aorist *bHe:r-t)
> > or a subjunctivized aorist (ie: < *bHer-t). What
> > piece of evidence disambiguates the two possible
> > cases?
>
> The tenaciousness of the full vocalism of the root syllable. For
> example, the *-nt- participle is *bHér-ont- rather than *bHr-ént-

(we

> have the latter type in *gWn-ént-, *kWr-ént- and *gWHn-ént-, for
> example). To be sure, most people reconstruct the participle of

the

> thematic type as *bHéro-nt-, but the alleged thematic vowel

untypically

> disappears in the weak cases in Ved. bHáratas < *bHér-n.t-os, so

perhaps

> one should derive the participle directly from the root verb

*bHe:r-.


Tokh B (Krause)
pres.

unattested
unattested
paräm.

unattested
parcer
parem.

partc.
act.
preñca
pass.
premane


Now that pres.part.act. looks more like something that was dreamt up
by Schmalstieg to me.


Torsten