Re: [tied] Catching up again...

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 4722
Date: 2000-11-14

As I've just written, Nom.du. *-h1(e) is quite plausible, though the relative merits of this reconstruction versus contraction have to be carefully weighed. The evidence for *-h3 in thematics is problematic to say the least. The insertion of a back glide after long (and etymologically back) vowels in prevocalic sandhi admits of a much simpler phonetic explanation. You can observe similar phenomena (linking [w]) in a number of modern languages.
----- Original Message -----
From: petegray
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Catching up again...

Piotr asked:
>What is the real evidence for a laryngeal in the dual ending?

I wish I had it all at my fingertips, but I don't.

(a) length is suggestive (e.g. Greek -o: in the thematic declension; fem -a:
as opposed to short -a in the 3rd declension, and surviving as -a: [not e:]
in the first)

(b) The behaviour of the dual in Vedic.  e.g. the long i: of duals is not
shortened in pronuncation before a vowel (see McDonnel's grammar p437,f n3).
Likewise the duals in -i:, -u: and -e do not cause the elision of a
following initial a-.

(c) The dual forms in -u are suggestive if compared with other situations
where we posit a laryngeal and find forms with -u, e.g. Sanskrit dadau (I
gave <*deh3) but cakara (no -u) for the words that do not end in a long
vowel < a laryngeal.

It would take too long to hunt out the other evidence, but I suspect it will
be easier to explain the forms by using a laryngeal than without one.