Re: [tied] Risoe fo the Feminine (was: -osyo 3)

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:02:51 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>So it is also required of the theory that it offer an explanation of
>the actual forms, not least those of surprising and potentially
>archaic structure. One would like to know what is really in play in
>the inflection of the pronouns: How did forms like the following
>come about:
>
>Gen.sg.Fem.: Ved. tásya:s, Goth. thizos
>Dat.sg.Masc.: Ved. tásmai, Goth. thamma, OHG dhemu, OPr. stesmu
>Dat.sg.Fem.: Ved. tásyai, Goth. thizai - ?
>
>Is the analysis involving the numeral 'one' really wrong? Is *te-sm-
>o:y not the dative of a compound made of *te- + *sm-o-, originally
>meaning 'this one'?

I think so. Hittite does not have this form, but it has
pronominal oblique cases with interposed -ed(an)-, which
might be linked to Slavic *ed-i:nU "1", Arm. ez "one, only"
(PIE *h1edh- "one").

>And has the feminine *te-sy-aH2-ay not in that
>case lost an /-m-/ in the clustering (Johannes Schmidt again)?

I don't think so. A simpler solution, I think, is that
*tosyah2 is in fact the feminine form corresponding to masc.
*tosyos, n. *tosyod (the source of gen. *tosyo). Gen.
*tyosyah2 acquired an *-s, and *tosyah2i etc. were
backformed on that.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...