From: etherman23
Message: 39849
Date: 2005-09-01
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:36:35 +0000, etherman23wrote:
> <etherman23@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:48:47 +0000, etherman23
> >> <etherman23@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, glen gordon <glengordon01@...>
> >> >Don't you find it just a little bit too coincidental that there's a
> >> >> > Miguel mentions in previous postings a plural in
> >> >> > -abh- and that this lautgesÃĪtzlich becomes -om.
> >> >>
> >> >> His basis for a true plural marker in *bH is weak.
> >> >
> >> >I agree
> >>
> >> What's weak about it?
> >
> >It's weak because *bhi is obviously a particle that became an
> >inflection in some languages.
>
> That isn't obvious at all. It it were a postposition, like
> is usually claimed, it would behave like a postposition,
> which it doesn't.
> A postposition in PIE is added to a case form of a noun, soImpossible unless the inflection is suffixed to the noun phrase.
> we would expect *p&2tros-bhi, not p&2tr.-bhi-os,
> *p&2tris-bhi, not p&2tr.-bh-is. It is true that some
> postpositions are themselves inflected case forms of nouns
> (e.g. *h2ant-i, which is the locative of *h2ant-
> "forehead"), but not in this case, because a noun of the
> shape *bhi is impossible in PIE.
> >It seems more obvious to me that *-e- isHow many are there to choose from?
>
> Which *-e-?