Re: [tied] Slavic endings

On 2006-08-14 03:28, Andrew Jarrette wrote:

> Robert Beekes suggests that the 1 pl. ending might have been -mom in
> some languages, rather than *-mos (alongside *-mem (Greek -men) and
> *-mes). This would then be another instance of *-om becoming -U,
> rather than *-os.

But there is no comparative support for *-mom (or *-mem, for that
matter, as the prototype of the Greek ending may have been *-men,
matching Hitt. -weni). To put it bluntly, *-mom has been proposed ad hoc
_only_ to account for Slavic *-mU, while *-mos has at least Latin -mus
to lean on.

Piotr
______________

You're right about *-mem being incorrect; I forgot why Robert Beekes proposed *-mom, and then decided that it must have been because of Greek *-men.  Otherwise why would he stupidly propose *-mom when all the other languages suggest *-mos, or at least a desinence ending in *-s.  So the conclusion is that *-os, unstressed or stressed, became *-U.  I find that hard to believe, but I must accept it.  And *-od, stressed or unstressed (?) became *-o.  Could the Slavic endings have been artificially introduced later as a means of making the languages prettier (since all those vowels seem to have the effect of making the languages prettier).  Now I'm telling you my deepest thoughts.  Whenever something is mysterious, I always suspect artifice.  I always find it difficult to believe that it is natural.  I realize I may be getting a bit too radical, and disrespectful of traditional historical linguistics, but I felt I should tell you every idea that enters my mind, even the ridiculous ones such as this one.  (You remember that I am considered to be a paranoid schizophrenic by my doctors).

Andrew