Re: [tied] Re: Some thoughts...

On 04-09-30 01:24, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> Where I disagree is the analysis of the nom.pl. I see
> *-oy/*-ey (whatever it's underlying form) as a plural
> oblique ending. The corresponding nominative is *-es(W) (<
> *-atu). That the nominative has been replaced by the
> oblique (accusative) in a number of pronouns (*toy, *wey,
> etc.) is unremarkable.

To my mind, it's the pronouns that look archaic. As far as I can see,
the accusative of *wei (secondarily *wej-es) was *n.s-mé in
comparatively reconstructed PIE; where's your oblique ending in it? If
the lenition of *-D > *-j took place only after [- high] vowels, an
original non-lenited fricative is perhaps reflected in 2sg. *jus. It
even seems possible to regard the alternative thematic plural in *oi as
the original unmarked _vocative_ i.e. *wl.kWo-D > *wl.kWoi, and the
*-oi- part of the locative plural as the old locative plural sans any
case ending (your solution is similar). BTW, you can see why I need an
originally voiced *D: the thematic vowel shows up as *o (*wei is a
special case, like dual *we).

> The thematic nom.pl. should have
> been *-os(W) [from pre-zero grade *ó-esW], a form which is
> perhaps still found in Skt. -a:sas, if from *-os-es.

I'd analyse it as regular *-o:s (from *-oD-z) extended with *-es at the
time when *-(e)s became the productive plural marker added after case
endings. *-o:ses was a dialectal variant whose traces survive in
Germanic and Indo-Iranian, but since the original plural ending also had
a final *-s, the innovation was successfully resisted in some IE
dialects, while others generalised *-oi.

Gotta run now,

Piotr

> The
> form *-o::s (with circumflex length) is then analogical,
> either from *-oy-sW (*-oD-s), as you suggest, or from *-o- +
> athematic *-es, as has been the communis opinio.
>
> For reference, a summary of my views:
>
> The plural and dual endings were once:
> dual: *-iku, obl. *-iki
> pl. (nominal): *-abhu, obl. *-abhi
> pl. (pronominal): *-atu, obl. *-ati.
>
> Depending on the shape and stress-class of the stem, these
> should have given:
>
> du.nom. *-ye(:h3) / *-yh3 / *-íh3 them. *-ó-h3
> du.acc. *-ye(:h1) / *-yh1 / *-íh1 them. *-o-íh1
> pl.nom. [*-om / *-m / *-ém] them. *-ó-sW
> pl.acc. *-om / *-m / *-ém them. *-ó-y
>
> With further oblique forms based on du. *-(y)h1- (them.
> *-oyh1-), and pl. *-bh(y)- ~ *-m- (them. *-oy-), and
> suffixed by the dual/plural articles *-h3, *-sW. The
> thematic paradigm was originally:
>
> nom. *-osW(-esW)
> acc./gen. *-oy
> dat. *-oy-ó-sW > *-oy(bhy)os
> loc. *-oy-sW-í > *-oysú
> ins. *-oy-é-sW > *-oís > *-ó::ys
>
> dual:
> nom. *-oxW
> acc./gen. *-oih1
> dat. *-oyh1-ó-xW > *-oyy(bhy)ó:
> loc. *-oyh1-xW-í > *-oyyú
> ins. *-oyh1-é-xW > *-oyy(bhy)ó:
>
> Athematic:
>
> nom. (abs. sg. + *-esW)
> acc./gen. *-om / *-m / *-ém
> dat. *-bhy-ó-sW
> loc. *-bh-sW-í > *-sú
> ins. *-bhy-é-sW > *-bhís
>
> dual:
> nom./acc./gen. *-ye / *-ih1
> dat. *-(y)h1-ó-xW ~> *-bhyó:
> loc. *-(y)h1-xW-í ~> *-Hou (?)
> ins. *-(y)h1-é-xW ~> *-bhyó:
>
> In the thematic forms, acc/gen. *-oy shifts to the
> nominative, while acc.pl. and gen.pl. are distinguished by
> importing athematic *-m and *-m-sW, respectively. Another
> nom.pl. form is *-o::S, discussed above.
>
> In the athematic paradigm, *-om is generalized in the
> gen.pl. (vs. thematic *-oy + *-m), *-m + *-sW in the acc.pl.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...