Re: [tied] Demonstratives

From: Âàäèì Ïîíàðÿäîâ
Message: 31757
Date: 2004-04-07

>> Unfortunately, I don't know in what languages the reflexes of
*wl.p- exist,

> Germanic wulfaz, Latin lupus.
Latin lupus is commonly believed to be an Osco-Umbrian borrowing, where *kW
> p is regular.

>> so I'll take another example: *akW- ~ *ap-
"water". We see *akW- in Latin, but *ap- in Sanscrit. If here the reflexes of *pW are found, the following soundlaw has to exist: *pW > Lat. kW, Scr. p. But if so, we must expect *wl.pW > Scr. vr.p-, but really Sanscrit has vr.k-. So, such a reconstruction gives nothing here.

It's not that simple.  We know that in Germanic we often
find *p (> f) for expected *kW (> xw) and *bh > b for
expected *ghW > (g)w.  But besides masc. wulfaz (*wl'kWos)
we also find fem. *wulgir (*wl.kWíh2s), so the position of
the accent may have played a role, as well as other factors
we don't know about.
So it is not necessary to reconstruct *pW here: the accent position etc. could be the reason of two reflexes of *kW as well.

>> Hittite 2sg. -ti is the hi-conjugation ending,
>> from *-th2a-i.  Even if it were from *-th2-i
directly, that
>> does not consitute evidence against the solid
soundlaw *ti >
>> (z)zi: the cluster *th2 might simply have merged
with *dh
>> here, and the regular outcome is *dhi > ti (and *di >
>Hittite 2sg. -ti is used also with some verbs of
mi-conjugation, and as it is obligatory with them, it is not possible to see here only the influence of the hi-paradigm.

No, the mi-conjugation always has -si in Old Hittite.  In
the younger language, there is increaing confusion between
mi- and hi-conjugations, and we see -ti in mi-verbs, and
(less often) -si in hi-verbs.
Perhaps it is so... Unfortunately, the only existing wholly descriptive grammar of Hittite by J. Friedrich is not based on Old Hittite, and, as I can see, more recent books (at least, those that I have access to) seem to be too influenced by their authors' theoretical views... Those 2sg. ti-forms in the mi-conjugation are rarely mentioned elsewhere. So I'm not aware that they really are absent in Old Hittite... So further reading needed, and espesially reading Old Hittite texts...

> We were talking about -t in the second person, not about
in the third person.
Eng. <thou art>

> *-o:i comes from contraction of
thematic vowel -o- + dative
> ending -ei.  In the, it comes
from the plural
> oblique *-oy- + -s(W) (cf. athematic -bhi-s(W)),
affected by
> Szemerényi's lengthening law (*-oy-s >

> That doesn't explain away the fact that the diphthong
> was certainly a phoneme at some stage in e.g.
pre-(Balto-)Slavic.  It gives -ui in Lithuanian, and -u/-y-
> in
Slavic.  I have interpreted the Slavic development (-u in
> the
absolute Auslaut, -y when followed by *-h < *-s) as
> containing a
pre-Slavic phoneme ô (analogical to <yat'> ê),
realized at first as /o:/, /e:/ and later as the falling
> diphthongs
/úo/, /íe/ ~ /ía/ (and then -úo > -u and -uoh
> -u:h > -y).  Unlike *ê, the phoneme *ô
practically only
> occurred in grammatical endings.
The development in Slavic etc. does not need *-o:i to be a single phoneme before this development. It is nothing but a change of a certain phoneme combination in certain circumstancies resulting in a new single phoneme.