Re: PIE -*C-presents

> >> It's the most economical explanation. Furthermore, there is
> >> no trace in IE of an inherited "passive" category.
> >
> >I think that is actually to be read as: "It's the most economical
> >explanation because there is no trace in IE of an inherited
> >"passive" category", since you provide no other reason why that
> >assumption is the most economical. Please object if you think
> >otherwise.
>
> I didn't think spelling out the reason was necessary.
>
> If the thing is an innovation in Indo-Iranian, then that's 1
> change. If the thing is an archaism preserved in
> Indo-Iranian only, then that's 9 changes (assuming IE
> consits of 10 branches: Celtic, Italic, Germanic,
> Balto-Slavic, Albanian, Greek, Armenian, Indo-Iranian,
> Tocharian, Anatolian). One innovation is more economical
> than nine losses.

You're not making sense. If you wanted to make head count a criteria
for what was part of PIE most of what we are discussing here would be
pointless.
On top of that, your point is pointless. I was trying to figure out
what kind of beast an aorist was. The i-aorist is a nominal form of a
verb. It fits into the same slot as other aorists. It follows that
other aorists are also nominal verbal forms. If you want to object, do
it to that.


Torsten