On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:48:47 +0000, etherman23
<
etherman23@...> wrote:
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, glen gordon <glengordon01@...> wrote:
>
>> > Miguel mentions in previous postings a plural in
>> > -abh- and that this lautgesätzlich becomes -om.
>>
>> His basis for a true plural marker in *bH is weak.
>
>I agree
What's weak about it?
The athematic plural forms can be analyzed as follows:
- e s > *-es
m - s > *-ns
om - - > *-om
m o s > *-mos/*-bhos/*-bhjos
- - s u > *-su
m i s > *-mis/*-bhis
Where <m> stands for *m, *bh or *bhj. The pattern is
clearly that <m> is the plural oblique marker, absent from
the nominative (and the singular, of course). Its absence
in the locative must be secondary: perhaps *-bh-s-u became
*-su.
In the thematic plural, we find *-o-ej- > *-oj- instead of
*-m-/*-bh-/*-bhj- in the oblique:
o - e s > -õs / -oj
o j [m] - s > -o:ns
o j [m] - - > -õm
o j [m] o s > -ojos, -o(j)mos...
o j - s u > -ojsu
o j [i] s > -ojs
The picture is somewhat distorted by the intrusion of
*m/*bh/*bhj from the athematic paradigm in the thematic
accusative and genitive, and also in the dative/ablative
(although there are good reasons to think the original
thematic form here was *-oj-o-s). The reason for this is
that the original accusative/genitive form *-oj had become a
nominative (as also in the pronouns: *wej, *k^ej, *toj,
etc.), so the accusative and genitive had to borrow
athematic *-m.
Thematic *-oj- is not a postposition, and therefore neither
is *-m-/*-bh-/*-bhj-.
>, but perhaps it could be connected to Georgian -eb plurals.
Of course. The Nostratic pattern is: pronominal plural nom.
*-atu, acc/gen. *-ati (also endingless *-an); nominal plural
nom. *-abu, acc/gen. *-abi.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...