Re: [tied] Re: PIE Word Formation Q&A (1)

On Sri, travanj 5, 2006 4:06 pm, Rob reče:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapović <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>>
>> > Alright, where do you see these archaisms?
>>
>> Well, vaca:(m.)s(i) for starters... There's more of course but I
>> don't have the literature handy right now and I am not sure I can
>> recollect all the instances by heart correctly. All the collectives
>> with *-V:C should belong here though, for instance *wedo:r > Hitt.
>> wida:r etc. The easiest way to explain *wedo:r is via earlier
>> *wedorh2.
>
> Such forms could also easily be from earlier e.g. *wédors, cf. *kwóns
>> *kwó:n. The point is, I don't see how we have all of the facts just
> yet.

Now, why would a collective have an *-s as an ending? Come on...

>> > That's not what I was asking, but thanks. Perhaps what I should
>> > really ask is how the /s/ came between the /n/ and the /i/.
>>
>> Well, it's the old *-s from *wekWo:s. It's a synchronic rule in
>> Sanskrit that these forms have to have a long vowel (here -a:-), a
>> nasal (-m.- here or -n- in yuga:ni) and a final -i, if my memory
>> serves me right. There's a nice little footnote about it in Sihler
>> for instance.
>
> IIRC, Sihler also mentions that such Sanskrit forms are rather
> enigmatic and difficult to reconstruct for IE, which is my point.
> Furthermore, how does the *s come to intrude between the *n and the
> *i? That's what I'm asking here.

It's a mix of the old *vaca:s and the younger ending -a:ni (instead of
-a:, where -ni is itself a younger ending based on the new *-nh2). The
-a:- is already there, but it's hard to reconcile the -ni with the
original *vaca:s (**vaca:sni would hardly work). Thus the -s- stays, the
-n- appears as the anusva:ra after the -a:- and the -i is at the end.
Phonologically, vaca:m.si is really vaca:nsi which and this -a:nsi is a
mix of old -a:s and newer ending -(a:)ni.

Mate