Re: [tied] Animate Dual in -h3 (was: IE Roots)

Giving it the benefit of the doubt, this is how it turns out:

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:
[...]

> Here's the explanation
> in two parts. Both phenomena have been discussed
> already:
>
> 1) the thematic ablaut from *&/*&:
> --------------------------------------------------
> We already discussed the ablauting vowel that terminates
> thematic stems. To explain the oscillation between *e and
> *o, we propose a single vowel *& which lengthened before
> voiced segments. Thus, *&: becomes *o and *& becomes
> *e. Any other explanation is laborious.

PIE stem-final vowels do alternate that way, but is the prestage of
o/e really one of long vs. short? It may of course be, but how can
we tell? Why must the explanation not be laborious? Were the
speakers lazy? Or are you?

>
> The *a in the feminine *-ax is merely the lowered uvular-
> affected variant of *e.

Sure.

> We find *e because *x (h2) is
> unvoiced and it comes from earlier *&.

Yes to "unvoiced", no opinion on "*&".

> IE *e only derives
> from early Late IE *e in cases where previous unstressed
> Mid IE *& has been preserved due to Paradigmatic
> Resistance (MIE *p&t:as& > *pedas > *pedos) or
> Monosyllabic Suffix Resistance (MIE *-na > eLIE *-n& >
> *-no-).

To show that these are the *only* sources of *e you need to show
that everything else leads to different results. That is not done in
a sentence.

> So we therefore know that *e here is from
> earlier *& and not from full unstressed *e because neither
> exception applies.

A valid syllogism only if the premise is right.

> And if we don't limit our exceptions
> we end up with a complex, convoluted system such
> as yours where you reconstruct any vowel you feel
> like.

That is not a valid argument. Some languages have convoluted
systems; don't they come from anywhere?

>
> 2) Animatization with thematic vowels
> ----------------------------------------------------
> I mentioned a while back that "thematic" suffixes were
> created out of "athematic" ones, changing the associated
> gender of the suffix in the process to animate instead
> of inanimate.

A funny place to start: the thematic inflection also comprises
neuters.

> We find inanimate *-r beside animate *-or-
> and inanimate *-x beside animate *-ax.

Very many animates are end-stressed, yes; however, then the unmarked
form appears to be /-er-/. In the collective, *-H2 vs. *-aH2 is not
a matter of gender at all.

> This has resulted
> because of earlier syllabic suffixes *-r and *-x being
> extended with an intervening schwa.

> As I said above, *& lengthens before voiced segments
> and only long *&: becomes *o. This is why we find *-or-
> (< *-&:r- < *-&r- due to voiced *r) versus *-ax (< *-&x
> due to unvoiced *x).

It doesn't look adequate.

> There is little doubt as to the original form and function
> of *-ax as an animate collective, regardless of masculine
> or feminine.

There is hardly any doubt that it is merely a matter of stem
formation.

[...]
But the laryngealless dual in *-o:(w) is in my opinion correct;
that, however, does not exclude the derivation from a form marked by
*-H3 which may simply have developed this way.

Jens