On 2007-07-10 03:08, stlatos wrote:
>> This word is trickier than that. With all other verb roots in Gk. the
>> infinitive has <-men(ai)>
>
> Not Attic-Ionic and Arcado-Cypriot -(e)nai, which is the evidence
> I'm using.
Wrong wording on my part. I mean that the "West Greek" (Aeolic/Doric
etc.) type of athematic infinitive in <-men(ai)> (also as reflected in
Homeric Gk.) is found with all types of verb roots while <-wen(ai)> is
attested _only_ in <dowenai> ~ <dou^nai>. Of course analogy distorts the
picture: -nai is found after verb roots with final *h3, like <didónai,
gno:^nai>, and so is <men(ai)>: <dómen, gno:^menai>. I don't know what
the latest learned opinions on the origin of <-(e-)nai> are, but isn't
it thinkable that it developed out of a reduced variant of *-m(e)n-
(*-mn-ai)?
> Why should this be a PIE change for this ev.? There are many
> changes of m>w in various IE languages.
Jens connects it with the *-me/*-we variation in pronouns, which looks
archaic. Of course there may be chronologically different layers of *w ~
*m variants, also of post-PIE origin.
Piotr