Untitled - Caio - Index of

52 IntroductionGreek/Doric -ti. 1be ending of the 3' " person plural in -am may be comparedwith eam from § 5.9) The questionable Greek peculiarity of the constant es- fo r full grade andzero grade, may most easily be explained by accepting that the Proto-Indo­European verbal root *es- originally contained a word-initial laryngeal, andthus read *h/es-, but otherwise was conjugated in a normal proterodynarnicfushion. Full grade *h/es- and zero grade * h,s- both produce in fuct, accordingto phonological rules, es- in Greek, see below, L 322 § I and L 328 § I.Full (e-) grade Greek *h/es- lives on after the disappearance oflaryngeals before a vowel as es-, whereas the word-initial consonance of the zero gradeGreek *h/s- developed with the help of a weak vowel via *h/os_ > *h/es- >also to es-. - This is not the case in Vedic and Italic, in which the full gradees- stands in clearly visible contrast to the zero grade s-: While the full grade"h/es- does resuh, parallel to Greek, in Vedic as- (on the intermediary grade*es-, see below, L 206) and the Latin es-, the zero grade *h/s- leads, in contrast,through simplification of the double consonance, from "h/s- to So. Thesingular of the Vedic participial negation &sat- (with a long initial vowelRgveda IV 5, 14 and VII 104,8; also attested several times with a short initialvowel asal-) 'not being' proves indirectly that at the time of this constructionthe initial double-consonance must still have been present, for this alone explainsthe stretched initial secondary form: PIE *IJ-h/s-nt- > Proto-Indo-•.. .LIranian * a-Hsal- > Vedic asat-. The short vowel is to be understood in contrastas a later analogous form of the participial sal-, with the usual prefix ofnegation 0- < * Q-.10) The postulation of PIE * h/es- leads to an adequate understanding ofte Vedic unperfect and, in SO doing, confirms its correctness as in the case ofiisant- in § 9. It was namely always noticeable that the Vedic singular andplural augmented forms exhibited equally lengthened as-, although the language-internalcomparison does not at first lead one to expect this, and, in theplural, should lead to a short initial vowel, see above, the table in E 502 § 12with the analysis of the I sg. &sam < *a-aS-Tf! and the 3 pI. &san < *a-s-ant, inwhich the reconstruction cannot explain the long initial vowel. - While in thecase of a postulated Proto-Indo-European root form "es- / *s- one could expecta first grade Proto-lndo-European singular *e-es- / plural *e-s- or ratherProto-lndo-Iranian singular iis- / plural *as- and an analogous transfer oflength into the plural, the PIE *h/es- / *h/s- produces directly the attested,The Reconstruction of Proto-lndo-European 53unified paradigm: PIE *e-h/es- > Proto-Indo-Iranian *il-Has-' > *a.as- > iisandthe plural *e-h/s- > Proto-lndo-Iranian *a-Hs- > iis-.11) Contrary to today's research and its laryngeal *h,es-, earlier research,with its postulation of the simple non-larygeal *es- /*s-, had considerable argumentativedifficulties. As representative of the communis opinio of thetime, one may cite Thumb / Hauschild Handbuch des Sanskrit I / 2 1959 § 488(as well as Leurnann LLFL 1977 p. 522 § 400.A.lb). Thumb and Hauschilddraw a direct parallel between the Vedic sanli and the Doric Greek Ev"ti. andtrace it via "henti back to "senti. Through analogy to the singular, the expectedaspiration is eliminated. Correspondingly, 10niclAttic Greekelai would be traced back to *hensi or rather *sensi (with Southern Greek -siinstead of -11). But in the case of the I" person plural "smen and the 2" " personplural "sle the initial e- would be analogously introduced. But the extension ofthe analogous e- to the stems of the optative and the participle cannot be explained.Further, the Mycenaean -e-o-Ie, i.e. -ehontes, known since 1952,fo rces the pushing forward of the analogy in question into the 2nd milleniumBC. 1be communis opinio leaves one utterly helpless before the Mycenaeane- of the 3 pI. e-e-si, i.e. ehensi, particulatly if one, in the cases of Ionicl Atticelai and Doric Ev"ti., believed he could succeed with the use of *senti.But despite all evidence: Even today there are researchers who happilycontinue to use *es- / *s- as a starting point and build hypotheses fromthere: -+ K. Shields "On the Origin oJ Dialeclal Ablaut Patterns oJ IhePresenl Aclive Indicative oJPIE "es To Be"' in HS 110 1997 p. 176-180.E 505. As a result of the first three steps of E 502-504, both of the followingparadigms may with certainty be attributed to Proto-Indo­European:Proto-lndo-European*h1es- 'to exist'*hJes-mi*h/esi < " hIes-si*h/es-ti*h1s-me­*h/s-Ie­"h/s-entiProto-lndo-European*hJej- 'to go'*h1ej-mi*h/ej-si*h/ej-ti*h/i-me­*h/i-Ie­*h/j-enti3 Nota bene: Because the laryngeal quality of Indo-Iranian laryngeals is no longerrecognizeable, J note it nonnally with H.