On 2007-09-30 12:06, tgpedersen wrote:
> Hm. I always thought that was a Verner variant of *es-. Could it be a
> loan from ON (em, ert, er, erum, eruþ, eru), which in turn could be
> back-formed from 3sg. er?
There's also 3pl. aru in Old Swedish. In OE, all the dialects have <a>
or <ea> (i.e., underlying *a), for which there's no analogical model,
and it's the northern (Mercian, Northumbrian) forms that have final þ,
which can't be explained as ON-influenced. It's quite clear that 2sg.
*izi (in all OE dialects) and 3pl. *sindi (in some dialects) were
replaced by suppletive forms borrowed from a different paradigm. The /a/
vocalism points to a preterito-present derived from *(h1e-)h1or-
> What's with the pres. 2sg. -t/-þ ?
WS t is analogical (after the /t/ extension of 2sg. -s), while (e)arþ is
the regular reflex of *(h1e-)h1or-th2a.
Piotr