Proper methodology (was: RE: [tied] Re: Mother of all IE languages)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:26:46 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>

wrote:

>
> Tocharian and Hittite have merged the reflexes of the 2pl. and 3pl.
> enclitic/possessive forms. Hittite has <-smas> (2/3pl. dat.

encl.) [but

> 1pl. <-nas>], <-smis> (2/3pl. poss). Tocharian has merged all the

plural

> forms (encl. <me> 1/2/3pl.). This can be explained if besides

*<usmé> (and

> analogical *<yusmé>), the 2pl. acc. also had a form *<sWsmé>

(regular from

> **tu-atu-má), identical to the 3rd. person/reflexive pronoun

*<sWsmé>

> (regular from **su-atu-má). This *sWsmé is what we find in Av.

acc.

> <xs^ma> (or <s^ma>) "you (pl.)". Subsequently in Tocharian, all

plural

> enclitics 1. *<nsme> 2. *<sme> 3. *<sme> merged as *<sme> > Toch.

<me>.

No need for all that: Tocharian has merged the three orthotone forms
*n.smé 'us', *usmé 'you', *smé 'them(selves)' into *me, whence the
enclitic *mos > TB -me. The lack of -s- can be explained in various
ways. There is no evidence for a different pair than *usmé/*wos to
be found here.

On top of it all you are weakening your position every time you have
recourse to alternative protoforms. My analysis does not do that.

Jens