Re: [tied] trzymac'

From: Mate Kapović
Message: 44803
Date: 2006-05-30

On Uto, svibanj 30, 2006 2:29 pm, Sergejus Tarasovas reče:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I've noticed it reading his article. He must have developed his
>> own theory of the origin of the non-acute *-i- in the present and the
>> acute (or short rising, for him) *-i- in the infinitive of *-i-verbs
>> (at least denominatives, to which *so(:)Ndi"ti belongs). The *-i- of
>> the present isn't a phonetically regular reflex of *-eje- (or
>> something like that) anyway and indeed demands explanation, though I
>> don't know how to get his *-Ěji:- from that (neither his *-Ějiti of
>> the infinitive).
>>
>
> Who wrote this nonsense? Me? Of course he just meant that since the
> verb in question is denominative, and the appropriate noun has *-Ij-
> (soNdĚji (b) before Dybo), then one would expect its denominative to be
> formed by simply adding *-i:- in the present and *-i?- (> *-i- in
> pretonic position, according to him) in the infinitive, thus *so,dĚji:-
> and *soNdĚji?ti > *soNdĚjiti. It has nothing to do with the origin of
> those *-i:- and *-i?- per se. The only thing I still don't understand
> is the contractions that follow (*-Ijî- > *-î- and *-Ějiti > *-îti)..

It's just an ad hoc solution to save the theory. I don't think anyone can
really buy it. Although, when I think of the so-called solution of *pHilaH
instead of *piHlaH, I guess anything is possible...

Mate