Re: Indo-European *es-

S'mae,
Ysgrifennodd Jesse S. Bangs:
> > ... actually, it was *Hs; the H surfaced as /e/ in late Common IE in
> > certain
> > clusters, but as [zero] in others, hence the distinction in, say,
> > Latin
> > between 'est' and 'sunt', both of which come from *Hs- plus ending.
>
> According to Sihler's _New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin_, it
> was actually *Hes-.  I forget which laryngeal he has.  Anyway, the form
> *Hs- would only have occurred in zero-grade forms.  The Latin forms in s-
> are the end result of a long and complicated process of clitic
> strengthening and weird analogies, and don't reflect a PIE *Hs-.
What about Church Slavonic so~ti, corresponding to L _sunt_? And the other
IE langs? Same processes or what?

Hwyl,
Pavel