Re: Slavic *-je/o

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.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.

Nono. Here's the original process: ChSl.
mogU
moz^e
moz^e
mogomU
moz^ete
mogõ

> How's this different from the assumption of a fully thematic
> conjugation, except that you add an intermediate stage with
> *-jo-/*-i-, which doesn't seem to be attested?

Jasonoff posits the existence of an extended present stem in -i-
in mi-conjugations, derived from an original hi-conjugation of
long vowel roots, which is the origin of the i/j of the -je/o-
suffix.

> What's the gain?

Deriving the thematic conjugation from the semithematic gains us
the reduction of the original set of entia by one, over the
theory which posits the existence of that ens from the beginning.

> > We'd now have
> > *-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.

Explain.

> And of course the Baltic infinitive must be explained as well.

Yes.


Torsten