On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:59:00 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Jarrette
<
anjarrette@...> wrote:
>1. What is the origin of -au in Sanskrit dvau and the classical Sanskrit dual nom. and acc. -au? Is there any sort of "dualizing" or "binary/bipolar" particle *u or the like? Such as in *we(:) (*u + *e(:)?) "or" or Gothic thau, jau ( tha-u, ja-u?)?
This was discussed here recently. There is a theory by
Jasanoff which states that final -óHe > -ó:u (but '-oHe >
'-o:). The rule, as desribed by Melchert in Anatolian
Historical Phonology (I haven't seen Jasanoff's paper),
would explain:
them. 1sg. '-o-h2e > -o:
them. du. '-o-h1e > -o:
them. all. '-o-h2e > -o: (Lith. -ù, Hitt. -a)
NA dual dwó-h1e > dwo:u
them. all -ó-h2e > -ó:u (Lat. illu:c, hu:c)
pf. 3sg. -..óH-e > -ó:u (Skt. dadha:u)
pf. 1sg. -..óH-h2e > -ó:u (Skt. dadha:u)
Against this, one can argue that the 1sg. thematic ending
cannot have been -oh2e (the thematic vowel is -e- > -a-
before -h2-), and that -oh2e would have given Lithuanian
circumflex -uõ, not -uó: > -ù (cf. a:-stem gen.sg. -ah2os >
-õs). Neither is the thematic dual ending -/h1e/ : it's -e
or -ye or -ih1, and the quality of the thematic vowel (*o
not *e) excludes the possibility of initial *-h1-, while
Lithuanian acute -ù also speaks against a contraction from
*-o-h1e. The Lithuanian instrumental in -ù cannot be from
*-o-h2e for the same reasons as given above for the 1sg.,
and the instrumental ending is in fact -eh1 (thematic -o-eh1
> -oh1 > Lith. -ù). (Where the Hittite allative comes from
is a different matter, but I doubt it contains a laryngeal).
Latin -u: in hu:c and illu:c admits a number of different
explanations (e.g. *-oi).
I would explain the (optional) -u in Sanskrit dual -a:(u) as
a leftover from the labialization of *h3 (-xW), and I would
reconstruct the ending as *-o-h3: that immediately produces
the right quality of the thematic vowel (whether *h3 was
voiced or not), and the right intonation in Lithuanian
(acute, not circumflex). The theory is confirmed by the
Kartvelian borrowing *ok^toh3 => os^txw, which retains the
PIE /xW/.
>2. Why did the IE dual have the same form for nominative and accusative? (I realize this is probably unanswerable.)
The two forms probably merged. I think that in the thematic
dual, the dfference is still there: animate *-o-h3
representing the former nominative, and inanimate *-o-ih1
the former accusative/oblique.
>3. Is there any evidence at all for an ablative plural/dual ending in Proto-IE? Was it always identical to the dative plural/dual? Does this state of affairs not lead to confusion?
The ablative plural/dual is always the same as the dative.
In the singular, the ablative is always the same as the
genitive, except in the o-stems.
>4. Are the Avestan ablative singular endings -oith/-aedha (i-stems), -aoth/-wath (u-stems), -aya:th (a:-stems) an innovation or inherited? th stands for thorn or theta.
Beekes' Gathic grammar doesn't mention these forms, which
might mean that tehy are later innovations, after the o-stem
abl. sg.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...