Re: [tied] PIE *h3 and PPIE **n

Miguel:

>**-n- generally stays as *-n-.

Yes!

>In the Auslaut, **-n > *-r, except when the preceding consonant is
>*/m/. This explains the PIE -r/-n- heteroclitics (all neuters, so
>with *-n in the absolute Auslaut in the nom/acc). It also explains
>the neuters in *-m(e)n, which failed to undergo the shift.

Yes! A person by the name of Hans-Joachim Alscher
(http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Hall/9766/indoeuro/gender.htm) has had
his own page on this sound change for years and I've been restating this
same rule already.

>Also explained is the 3pl. preterite *-e(:)r, which can be analyzed >as
>zero ending + plural morpheme *-en- (**-an-), to which additional >3rd.
>person *-t (or *-s, e.g. in Indo-Iranian) could optionally be >added.

There is no plural morpheme *-en-. There is no support for this in
Tyrrhenian nor in any closely related language group to IE. More below.

>The symmetrical scheme is:
>
>*-mw > *-m *-mw-�n > *-m�n/*-w�n (*-me(s)~*-mos, *-me:(s))
>*-tw > *-s *-tw-�n > *-t�n (*-te(s), *-te:(s), etc.)
>*-0 > *(-t) *-0-�n > *-�r(-t) [present *-enti]

No, sigh. You're really fighting this, aren't you? From Steppe to IE, it
should be:

*-m > *-m *-mi(t) > *-m�, -m�s
*-t > *-s *-ti(t) > *-t�, *-t�s
*-a/-i > *-t *-ani/*-ini > *-ent

There is no need for labialised phonemes ad nauseum. Why can't you crave
simplicity? You've completely misunderstood the plurals in *-n. It has been
transferred via the 3pp *-ene (note MEDIAL and not final *-n) to the 1pp and
2pp by analogy only (hence *-mene/*-tene > *-men/*-ten), at a late date! The
original plurals were either identical with their respective pronouns or
they were terminated with the plural *-it (hence *-mes < *-mit).

>The obvious exception is the 2pl., where we would expect *-ter (vs.
>present *-teni). Tocharian B. has -cer (< *-te:r), which may be an
>isolated remnant of this expected form

Hmm... Doesn't Toch.A. have -ma"s & -c for 1pp & 2pp? This looks awfully
assymetrical unless maybe something got replaced in the 2pp as opposed to
the 1pp. In which case, we shouldn't expect TochB -cer to be directly
reflective of IE. What is the 1pp in TochB? Only one language to cover the
failings of your theory where **-r doesn't exist? Why not reconstruct a
MEDIAL *-n- like me? Wouldn't that be simple?

>Other exceptions (i.e. PIE words ending in *-n) are rare: there is >*en
>"in", which, as a preposition, was never in absolute Auslaut, and >may be
>short for *en-i (with Loc. *-i) in any case.

The *-n > *-r change only affected _full_ words (nouns/verbs) as opposed to
enclitics. Hence final *n in enclitics were treated as "medial" because they
were not originally complete except within the context of a phrase. The
locative doesn't need to be employed here.

>There are some interesting locatives in *-r [< **n?] (such as E. >"where")
>as well. Any other PIE *-n's?

Wouldn't the word "when" be a locative? :)

>Palatalized **-n^ can give both *n and *i. This is apparent in a
>number of lexical items (*nem-, *yem-, *em- "to take" < **n^em-; or
>maybe *su:nus/*su:yos "son" < **suH-n^- (?)),

Why do you insist on this stupidity? *suxnu- and *suxyo- are two totally
different forms altogether! Do you ignore the important *-u-/*-o- difference
just to aggravate or to be daft?

>but morphology provides another clue in the *-i/*-n- stems (such as >found
>in Vedic), e.g. N. p�tis, G. p�tyur, fem. p�tni: or N.A. �sthi, >G.
>asthn�s, where the *i in the nom.sg. might well be derived from >earlier
>**n^.

Oh come on! Now you're saying that **n^ becomes *-ni- instead of *-nu- or
*-yo-? If you honestly do not notice the inconsistencies here, you must be
taking high dosages of something.

>Whether the word for "9" has anything to do with "new" or not, there
>is the possibility of *neu-i-os < **nawn^-os and/or Arm. nor "new" <
>*nowor < *nowr. < *na:wn.

There is no **-n^- in Etruscan /nurph/ "nine". The /-ph/ part (perhaps from
/pi/ "at, in, through") is similar to /cezp/ "eight" (< *ci-s'e-pi "three
from (ten)"). Have I mentioned MidIE *neura before (Early Late IE *neur with
root *neun- by analogy with heteroclitic declension)? It might correspond,
albeit irregularily, with the Altaic form too.

- gLeN

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com