>Nono. Here's the original process: ChSl.
> --- In email@example.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > Here's another take:
> > The *-je/o- extension appears just before the endings. It is a
> > type of thematic ending.
> > Suppose (Schmalstieg) the original verbal (mi-)inflection was
> > the semithematic one, ie the one where those endings that have
> > -o- in the thematic inflection (before voiced) are there and
> > those that have -e- in the thematic (before unvoiced) aren't
> > there. Such a version of a verb with the *-jo-/je- suffix
> > would look like *-jo-/-i- instead. Suppose further that the
> > thematic inflection was produced from the semithematic one by
> > placing -e-'s before the unvoiced endings.
> Voiced too, cf. OCS 1st and 3rd pl.
> How's this different from the assumption of a fully thematicJasonoff posits the existence of an extended present stem in -i-
> conjugation, except that you add an intermediate stage with
> *-jo-/*-i-, which doesn't seem to be attested?
> What's the gain?Deriving the thematic conjugation from the semithematic gains us
> > We'd now haveExplain.
> > *-jó-/-íe-, it being so late that the latter (corresponding
> > to your *-ih-) didn't go -> *-jé-, and therefore later could
> > go to Slavic *i, like *ei and *i: did.
> There are accentual differences between *-ih- (or anything that
> behaves like inherited *-ih-, like the vowel of the infinitive) and
> vowels resulting from such contractions.
> And of course the Baltic infinitive must be explained as well.Yes.