Re: [tied] The idea of the root *h1eg^ ("I", "to speak")

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

> I like it! Given the fact that the 1sg. pronoun has verbal-looking
> extensions (*h1eg^o: ~ *h1eg^om) one could even spaculate that it
> developed out of something like 'I (should) say'. *h1ég^- was

apparently

> a root aorist, so *h1ég^-e/o- (with secondary or primary endings) would
> have been the corresponding subjunctive.

Might the peculiar consonant of the Indic forms (usually reconstructed
to PIE *h1eg^Hom) include the *h2 of some 1st person verb suffixes,
and so derive from *h1eg^-h2-?

Why can't the pronoun have meant '(he) who am speaking'? (I know that
such agreement is not grammatical in modern English, but I believe it
can be found in Latin.) It would naturally be ground down quite a
bit, so it could easily have lost a relative pronoun.

Richard