From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 54014
Date: 2008-02-23
>It's the most economical explanation. Furthermore, there is
>> >> It is also restricted to the third person.
>> >
>> >And according to Burrows and Jasanoff, so was the s-aorist, which
>> >was the line of readoning I tried to carry on.
>>
>> My point was that it's a much more recent formation (as also
>> witnessed by the fact that it's restricted to Indo-Iranian).
>
>I don't get that line of reasoning. Why can't it be a sole survival
>instead?
>> >> Root nouns rarely have e(:)-grade,Yes, of course. *h2né:r, *bhó:r, like *p&2té:r, *h2ák^mo:n,
>> >> and they always lose nominative *-s after a resonant.
>> >
>> >Awesome. Now we have an origin for root aorists too.
>>
>> Root aorists do not have e:-grade.
>
>Do root nouns that lose nominative *-s after resonant still have
>Szerémenyi lengthening?
>> >> Furthermore, the *-s inYes, that would be the way to construct a verbal plural. The
>> >> the 3pl. is added to the verbal plural morpheme *-en >
>> >> *-(e)r, not to any nominal plural. If the precursor of the
>> >> s-aorist was ever a nominal form, it had already become a
>> >> purely verbal form by the time of PIE.
>> >
>> >And that might be exactly why it was being mechanically applied to
>> >the plural by analogy of the singular?
>>
>> I don't understand.
>
>If the 3sg had -s (no other ending at first) the way to construct a
>plural for it might be to add -s to an ending imported from the 3pl
>perfect?