Footnote 1: Erhart (1973: 245) characterizes Dressler’s thesis in this way: «... der nominale Plural und die Aktionsarten der verbalen Pluralität als kombinatorische Varianten des Semems ‘Pluralität’ aufzufassen sind».

Footnote 2: Thus, this paper represents a qualification of the analysis presented in Shields 1981, where it is argued that the sigmatic element of all Indo-European sigmatic verbal formations derives from a deictic particle in *(e/o)s with non-present signification.

Footnote 3: See Watkins 1962: 90-92 and 1969: 49-50 for additional evidence in support of the reconstruction of *-Ø as the original third person suffix of Indo-European.

Footnote 4: Although until this point I have used the term plurality ... because it is associated with Dressler's analysis ... cf. Schmalstieg 1974b: 192 and Shields 1982: 63-64.

Footnote 5: Schmalstieg (1974a: 1) endorses this same assessment ... cf. also Schmalstieg 1974b: 189 and 1977b: 129-134.

Footnote 6: In terms of deictic force, Schmid (1972: 10) characterizes «Dieser Deixis» ... see Shields 1981 ... cf. also Gonda 1956: 28-29.

Footnote 7: Of course, the suffix *-s(k)- was further subject to the process of thematization.

Footnote 8: I am tempted to propose ... (Watkins 1969: 56) ...