Print

Print


On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Andrew Jarrette <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> --- In [log in to unmask], Edgard Bikelis <bikelis@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Lets suppose a root R. If the present is R, athematic, the subjunctive
> will
> > be the root plus the thematic vowel, R-e/o-. Now, if the present becomes
> > R-e/o-, its subjunctive gains another thematic vowel, R-e-e/o-. If the
> first
> > athematic form is older, the only obvious origin for the thematic present
> is
> > that the subjunctive from the athematic conjugation became a new present
> > form, and then its subjunctive was marked again. I hope this was clearer
> : )
> >
>
> But (and I think this is Eugene's point) why would that happen?  Why would
> a (tenseless, only aspect indicated) subjunctive form be given indicative
> present meaning?


A very good question indeed ; ). I have no idea, maybe it's not even what
really happened, but morphologically it's the easiest way to get thematic
presents. Besides, there are some thematic reduplicated aorists  also... so
the thematic vowel, as we see it, could be more than just one entity.

Do you have any idea about how/why the thematic present was created... or
maybe the whole thematic/athematic distinction?

>
>
> Andrew Jarrette
>