Re: [tied] Tyrhennian affiliation

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 33154
Date: 2004-06-08

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 16:31:38 -0700 (PDT),
enlil@... wrote:

>Me:
>> We can agree that the alternation can only derive from one and the
>> same phoneme.
>
>Miguel:
>> I really couldn't say. Adiego mentions some theories
>> (pronominal -ca-va or just -va?, suffixed heva "all?"), but
>> it's impossible to tell if we're dealing with two slightly
>> different suffixes -c(h)va and -va, or with different
>> phonological developments of the same suffix in different
>> contexts.
>
>When both 'five' and the inanimate plural show the same alternation
>of /cH/ and /v/, it's time to face the facts that we have a widespread
>phonological pattern that can't be explained by morphology.

Perhaps. But what's the pattern?

>> Animates and inanimates alike take the plural ending -(i)s'-v(a)-.
>
>If /-va/ is expected after sibilants elsewhere then this ending follows
>the expected pattern nonetheless.

I was of course referring to the pattern animate -ra ::
inanimate -(c(h))va.

>Personally I doubt that pronominals
>in the third person originally had plural markers. I have a hunch that
>this is a relatively late innovation. What examples show this ending
>again?

Patronymics (larisalis'vla, larthialis've, etc.), i.e.
(human) animates.

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