Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>
> As to the -w- forms in the 1pl., besides Hitt. 1sg. -mi, 1pl. -wen(i)
> we have Luwian 1sg. -wi, 1pl. -man(i), so it's unlikely that this has
> anything to do with the dual (also, we'd expect -a- instead of -e-
> vocalism and no final -n(i) in Hittite if the 1pl. form were derived
> from 1du. *-wh2ás or *-wh2á).

In Melchert's Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon I find seven forms of the 1pl, all
ending in -u-un-ni. Not a single one has an -m-.

The bracket statement about the expected -a- in Hittite escapes me; in
fact the 1.2.pl. sometimes do end in -wan(i), -ttan(i), but I don't see
where the -h2-'s come in. Should they be reversed so as to fit Skt. 2du
-thas, 2pl -tha? And if so, where *does* *-me come from? Or was there no
such form?

Jens