A while ago I reached the conclusion that the only logical
explanation for the Lithuanian nominative plural form of the
active present and past participles (which have
-(i)aN/-iN/-aN in the present, and -eN in the past) was that
they represent the otherwise lost 3pl. forms of the finite
verb. I did not post about the matter here, because I
wanted to investigate further. I now see that Warren
Cowgill beat me to it, and already published the same
discovery in a 1970 article in "Baltic Linguistics" ("The
nominative plural and preterit singular of the active
participle in Baltic"), to which I don't have access because
my ILL account seems to have stopped working.
Are there any serious objections to deriving the nominative
plural forms, which totally lack any kind of plural marking
compatible with a nominal paradigm, from the PIE 3rd. person
plural finite form? The lack of present tense *-i in the
present ptc. forms is unproblematical, as we have i-less
forms in the Slavic third person plural too (-oN/-oNtU,
besides -oNtI), and the Lithuanian third person singular is
likewise i-less (-(i)a/-i/-o).
I would also be interested in what Cowgill has to say about
the past active participle nominatives (sg. -eNs and pl.
-eN). Perhaps the nom.pl. -eN can be explained as
continuing the 3rd. person plural athematic (s-/root-)aorist
*-(s)enti, with the nom.sg. -eNs (for PIE *-wo:ts) as a
back-formation on that?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...