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

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:46:50 +0200, Piotr Gasiorowski
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>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 That the nominative has been replaced by the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?

It's built on the non-oblique *mes(W), just like the 2nd and
3rd person accusatives *usmé (*us(W) + *-mé) and *smé
(*sWés? + *-mé). Likewise in the dual and perhaps the
singular, where *mé is added to the nominative rather than
to the oblique.

>If the lenition of *-D > *-j took place only after [- high] vowels, an
>original non-lenited fricative is perhaps reflected in 2sg. *jus.

The advantage of my theory is that it explains all the forms
(*mes ~ *wey ~ *weh1, *(y)us ~ *swey ~ *(y)uh3) as
reflecting non-oblique *-atu > *-esW, oblique *-ati > *-ey.
In the first person, the old oblique forms are favoured
(*wey, *weh1), in the second person, the old nominatives
(*(y)us, *yuh3), but *mesW [Armenian mek`, Lith. mes] and
*swey [Celtic *swi:, Hitt. suwe:s] certainly existed.


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