Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o

Me:

> This is of course completely nuts, unnecessary and overcomplicated.
> MIE *-es (inheirited from Proto-Steppe *-it as attested in Uralic,
> Altaic, EskimoAleut and Tyrrhenian) is simply expected to be **-&s
> in eLIE after Syncope but there's a reason why it didn't.

Jens:

> Perhaps it is, but then it should be noted that the language
> *accidentally* behaves in such a way that a derivation of its
> nominative plural from a morphologically regular underlying form
> marking the nominative and the plural in the same order as the
> accusative plural would be in full compliance with the same rules
> that are found to produce morphological regularity in the rest of
> the language. Appearances may be deceitful, but this resembles a
> miracle.

Can you elaborate further. I don't quite follow what you're trying
to say.


Jens:

> There is no vowel in the plural marker of Eskimo-Aleut which adds *-
> d (dental spirant) directly to the stem.

That's right, everything's normal. The plural in ProtoSteppe was
*-it overall, while *-t after vowel-ending stems. I just write *-it
for simplicity's sake with the implied rule that any initial vowel
of a suffix in Steppe is dropped when following the vowel of the stem.
The transitive 1ps is *-im and the intransitive 1ps is *-uh but always
keeping their vowels only because all verb stems are consonant-final by
design. Noun stems are more varied in shape.

> So you accept the form as *irregular* because regular sound change
> would have disturbed the morphology? Why did this also happen in
> words that have no singular, like *tréyes 'three', *kWétwores 'four'?

There is no way I can think of of making IE *-es a regular outcome of
*-it. It should be **-os. It is inevitably irregular. Hopefully we agree
on this. The problem is how to give adequate motivation for this
irregularity while keeping things as simple as possible. I believe I've
done just that.

Your last question here is moot. The plural came to be *-es in nouns
with singulars and thus spread to all other forms. I'm not convinced
that there wasn't *treis and *kWetwors at some point in the past
either. We see *-s in the accusative plural *-ms anyway.

> The facts of IE are the relevant ones. And unfortunately only *dom-
> /*dém-s shows lack of a laryngeal, while all verbal forms have it
> where it can show.

Yes, an extension *-x- would be the culprit. This makes everything
expected and regular.

> It rather seems that roots are neutral as to verbal voice. Vedic
> vá:c- 'word' or 'voice', dvís.- 'hatred' or 'enemy'.

So there would be little point in adding a modal suffix like *-x- to
*domos, would there.


= gLeN