Re: [tied] Re: PIE i- and u-stems again

On 2007-02-19 21:31, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:

> The question where the *i comes from aside, the G.sg. of
> *kWis _is_ *kWesio (e.g. OCS c^I-to, c^eso) and the G.sg. of
> *is _is_ *esio, just like *so has Gsg. *tosio, etc.

Well, there's also Goth. gen.sg. þis as well as instr.sg. neut. þe: 'the
(+ comp.)', and I do't think it's evident that forms like *tosjo and
*toh1 are primary. On the other hand, anaphoric *is may have a
"thematic" counterpart (Hitt. a-).

> It is
> undeniable that there were two different pronominal
> declensions in PIE, and I find nothing surprising about the
> fact that the two differ both in the strong cases (*-os,
> *-om, *-od, *-ah2 vs. *-is, *-im, *-id, *-ih2) and in the
> weak cases (*-o- vs. *-e-).

But *-ah2 means *//-e-h2//, so there are at least some e-forms in the
first set. Variation between the thematic vowel and *-i- is not
restricted to pronouns: cf. free-standing *dwo- vs. compositional *dwi-,
*wl.'kWo-/*wl.kWí-h2, *néwo-/*néwi-o-, etc.

> ... Slavic *-i:- (circumflex) cannot come from *-éh1-,
> *-h1-, *-h1jé- or *-éh1je-, which would have given -ê"-,
> -0-, -jé- and -ê~-, respectively. And Baltic -i- (short)
> cannot come from any of those either. In particular, a
> present form in *-h1jé- would have merged with the jé-stems,
> and this is precisely what did *not* happen in Baltic or
> Slavic (although it happened in other branches).

I mean, are there any problems whatsoever with the "thematic-derived"
type (nove^je/o- etc.) if one derives it from *-e-h1-je/o-? The present
of the "athematic-derived" type for some reason fell together with
whatever had become of the *-éje/o- causatives/iteratives. I admit I
can't think of a convincing reason for that at the moment, so please
give me a little time to think the problem over. It might be significant
that there is a marginal overlap between the developments of *-(h1)je/o-
and *-eje/o- (the 1sg. has *-joN in both types).

Piotr