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

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:14:50 +0000, Rob
<magwich78@...> wrote:

>I'm glad you think so. :) The only other language (to my knowledge)
>that has case-number order is Classical Arabic with plural marker -na
>following case endings.

Good example. The case system is (construct state):

sg:
nom. -u, acc. -a, gen. -i

pl:
nom. -u:, obl -i:

du:
nom. -a:, obl -ay

In the definite form, nunation is added as follows:

sg:
nom. -u, acc. -a, gen. -i

pl:
nom. -u:-n(a), obl -i:-n(a)

du:
nom. -a:-n(i), obl -ay-n(i)

The plural/dual marker -n (the additional vowel -a or -i is
automatic after a long vowel) is added *after* the case
markings -u:, -i: (-a:, -ay).

This is consistent with a pronominal origin (former definite
article) of the -n marker.

I have always maintained that the PIE plural marker *-es/*-s
is also of pronominal origin, and the atypical ordering
(case marking - plural sign) possibly confirms this. I'd
have to look into this more closely.

>Sorry, I had retyped that part and forgot to leave out the "not."
>Would *re:gs 'king' (< **reHgs?) be an example of what you mention?

Not if the length is caused by a laryngeal (which I don't
think it is). I would reconstruct *Hreg-s > *h3re:gs,
*h3reg-m [analogically re:gem, re:gis, etc., after the
lengthened nominative]).

>If not, what are some examples?

Other examples are *po:ds "foot", *-wo:ts (ptc.pf.act.),
*méh1no:ts "month", etc.

>> The nominative marker is lost after lengthened vowel followed by /n,
>> r, y/, perhaps /m/, probably not /l/, and certainly not /w/. You may
>> work out your generalization on that.
>
>I thought the nominative marker was retained in y-stems (i-stems)?

In normal i-stems the vowel isn't lengthened (the
lengthening only affects sequences -VC(C)-s).
Diphthong-stems (-oy-s > -o:y) drop the -s (Skt. sakha:,
Grk. Sappho:, Hitt. hastai).

>Hmm. The nom. sg. is *xákmo:n, later *ákmo:n, stem *(x)ákmon-
>(thinking to myself). If the lengthened /o/ is due to compensatory
>lengthening from loss of *-s, then the short unstressed /o/ is
>explained. What is not explained is the difference between *(x)
>ákmo:n (< *xákmons) and *xWnómn, if the latter is to be scanned *xWnó-
>mn and not *xWnóm-n. So the question is, is the suffix of 'name' the
>same as that of 'stone'?

Yes. But "name" is a neuter.

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