suppletive

According to this theory, the PIE s-aorist was originally a specially inflected type of root aorist in which the 3 sg. active form, for reasons now lost within the prehistory of PIE, was built from a suppletive sigmatic stem with 'Narten' *ē : *e ablaut.

Archive 2009-08-01 2009

I'm going to now assert the following premise for the sake of discussion: PIE *itself* still retained a subjective-objective contrast and this is what lies behind the suppletive *mi- and *h₂e conjugations.

Archive 2009-08-01 2009

According to this theory, the PIE s-aorist was originally a specially inflected type of root aorist in which the 3 sg. active form, for reasons now lost within the prehistory of PIE, was built from a suppletive sigmatic stem with 'Narten' *ē : *e ablaut.

Looking for a simple origin to Hittite's hi-class preterite 2009

I'm going to now assert the following premise for the sake of discussion: PIE *itself* still retained a subjective-objective contrast and this is what lies behind the suppletive *mi- and *h₂e conjugations.

Is an active-stative or subjective-objective system more appropriate for earliest Common Proto-IE 2009

For example, if we ponder on the suppletive declension of *so-/*to- "that", we notice that *so never receives case endings and is only ever used in the animate nominative while *to- is used everwhere else i.e. for the inanimate and all other cases other than nominative for all genders.

The trouble with the PIE 1st & 2nd person plural endings (3) 2008

Now I can make sense of the suppletive pattern we see in the subjunctive-turned-future-indicative endings:

Archive 2007-07-01 2007

So I figure the best way to explain that is to propose a suppletive absolutive-ergative system for Nostratic as follows note that my intention is to conjecture for the sake of discussion:

A ramble about the Nostratic pronominal system, part 2 2007

There is one interesting, recurring feature in Nostratic language groups that I notice: a suppletive system involving two very unrelated forms for each person.

A ramble about the Nostratic pronominal system, part 2 2007

Now I can make sense of the suppletive pattern we see in the subjunctive-turned-future-indicative endings:

Thoughts on the early Indo-European subjunctive 1ps ending 2007

So I figure the best way to explain that is to propose a suppletive absolutive-ergative system for Nostratic as follows note that my intention is to conjecture for the sake of discussion:

Archive 2007-12-01 2007