2,334
edits
Vėtuhapamarėska: Difference between revisions
m
→Verbs
m (→Prosody) |
m (→Verbs) |
||
| Line 483: | Line 483: | ||
|- | |- | ||
! 1st | ! 1st | ||
| *-am, *- | | *-am, *-ū 1 || -wā || -ema/-eme | ||
|- | |- | ||
! 2nd | ! 2nd | ||
| Line 545: | Line 545: | ||
|- | |- | ||
! 1st | ! 1st | ||
| *-sjam, *- | | *-sjam, *-sjū 1 || -siwā || -esima/-esime | ||
|- | |- | ||
! 2nd | ! 2nd | ||
| Line 569: | Line 569: | ||
|} | |} | ||
'''Notes:''' | '''Notes:''' | ||
# Both endings could be reconstructed for 1st person singular in present tense. The former ending is from the Western dialects, the latter - from the Eastern ones. | # Both endings could be reconstructed for 1st person singular in present tense. The former ending is from the Western dialects, the latter - from the Eastern ones. The Eastern form with an '''ū''' is expected from simple phonological development, while the Western '''am''' is explained by an innovation, which is shared with Slavic languages, however it doesn't mean that the change happened in early Proto-Slavic, otherwise there would be no differences in endings between the dialects. | ||
# According to the modern language the ''-ēis'' ending is reconstructible for 2nd person singular in past tense, but the form ''-ei'' was attested. However it is not precisely known whether the ''-ei(s)'' ending was real or it could be a misspelling. | # According to the modern language the ''-ēis'' ending is reconstructible for 2nd person singular in past tense, but the form ''-ei'' was attested. However it is not precisely known whether the ''-ei(s)'' ending was real or it could be a misspelling. | ||
# It is not know how exactly the ''en'' suffix functioned, it could indicate a process or duration of an action. It is not found anywhere except this tense. | # It is not know how exactly the ''en'' suffix functioned, it could indicate a process or duration of an action. It is not found anywhere except this tense. | ||