> > > That n/r alternation looks similar to that of the
heteroclitic
> > > neuter nouns and that postulated for the 3rd pl. ending, -n(t)-
vs
> > > -r-. Is the mechanism similar, ie that the -r- was once a
> > > word-final -n# (and after it changed a thematic vowel was
added)?
> >
> > Yes, I think it's basically the same mechanism. Namely, *-to-, *-
no-
> > and *-ro- arose as different thematisations of the same original
> > suffix -- participial *-(e)nt-. The source of the *-r- variant
may
> > have been the the neuter form of the participle, *-n(t)# > *-r,
> > analogically influencing forms with non-final *n;
>
> (...)
>
> > Piotr
>
> Hi!
>
> Much by coincidence I am these days thinking exactly about that.
> Wrestling against it would be more fair to my current state :).
> Anyway, about the present primary desinences of the athematic
verbs,
> for instance, please, could anyone help me to understand it's
origin?
Here's what I think:
1st and 2nd pl. are late. I'll leave them out.
The three desinences of the singular are originally deictic
particles, corresponding to the Hittite conjunctions 'nu', 'sa'
and 'ta' , originally in PIE meaning "this (at me)", "that (at
thee)", "yon (at him)", respectively. The fourth one is
*-en 'someone/thing' (somewhere). They are appended (or not) to the
verbal root, which is by nature a verbal noun.
1st V-nu > V-m or V-o:
meaning "this V-ing (at me)"
2nd V-sa > V-s
meaning "that V-ing (at thee)"
3rd V or
V-ta > V-t
meaning "yon V-ing (at him)"
indefinite V-en > V-r- (3rd pl. or impersonal, middle) or
meaning "some V-ing (somewhere)"
V-en-ta > V-nt- (3rd pl.)
meaning "the V-ing (somewhere)"
Because the desinences originate in deictics they are sometimes
confused (2nd sg -t, 3rd sg. 2 -s and -m). It wouldn't have happened
if they had originated in pronouns.
-i is originally a postposition which occurs also in the locative
*-i and dative (*-ey) of Nouns. Added to the above forms it becomes
*-mi "in my V-ing"
*-si "in thy V-ing"
etc.
Torsten