[tied] Re: Lithuanian nom.pl. participles

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

>
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:00:28 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >> 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?
> >
> >There are those that do the opposite, derive the third plural

from the

> >present participle. What's your position on that?
>
> That's an entirely different question.
>
> The PIE third person plural has nothing to do with the
> present participle. It patterns quite easily with the other
> verbal endings and requires no separate explanation:
>
> 1 **-mW (*-i)
> 2 **-tW (*-i)
> 3 **-0 + *-t (*-i)
>
> 1 **-mW-én (*-i)
> 2 **-tW-én (*-i)
> 3 **-0 -én + *-t (*-i)
>
>

It's striking how similar the Uralic 1st 2nd endings are to those of
IE, eg Estonian

-n -me
-d -te

but the 3rd pers endings are not:

-b -vad

Jens (I think it was) told me that those endings are originally
participial. It's therefore tempting to seek a similar explanation
for IE.


Torsten