[tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

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

>
> 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.

But later (up to and including XIX century) pl. Sw. äro, Da. ere

> 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.

How about this:
PIE ess tu > contracted *estu > PGerm. *estu (no Grimm after s); that
way we won't have to posit some inconvenient PGerm. rule *-sþ- >
*-st-. 2sg. suffixes *-t and *-þ are then from the PIE contracted and
PGerm. contracted forms, respectively.

> 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.

How about: from a different language?

> The /a/ vocalism points to a preterito-present derived from
> *(h1e-)h1or-

Nice, if you stay within OE. How do we explain the /e/ vocalism of the
parallel ON forms then?

> > 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.

See above. I suspect the /a/ vocalism is NWBlock. Or the result of a loan.


Torsten