Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Ales Bican
    Jul 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      David Kiltz wrote:

      > > I don't think the agentive suffix has to do with past tense. ULU-
      > > (pour): the past tense (intr.) is _ulle_ without any "n", but there's
      > > _ulunde_ (flood).
      > > BTW, there's no aorist stem here, the suffix is immediately joined
      > > with the root.
      > Well, according to what you said above about the assimilation of _n+l_ >
      > _ll_ I think _ulle_ is < *_ul-ne_. The notion of "past" resides in the
      > _n_.

      **Well, I am of the opinion that _ulle_ may be from *_u.n.l-ê_, sc.
      the _n_ is infixed and a strong past suffix is added. This is at least
      how I explain Telerin past tense _delle_ of _delia_ (WJ:364), sc.
      being from *_de.n.l-ê_. For if it were from *_del-nê_, it would
      have to be explained why the combination -ln- was assimilated to
      -ll- if -ln- in _elni_ (WJ:362) was not.

      Ales Bican

      ps. It is also possible that PQ already possessed two allomorph
      *_-lê_ and *_-nê_.

      Mi dissero che e quell'epoca per quindici giorni e quindici notti
      i retori Gabundus e Terentius discussero sul vocativo di _ego_,
      e infine vennero alle armi. (Umberto Eco, _Il nome della rosa_)