[tied] Re: PIE genitive plural *-o:m, a possible analysis

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2006-04-24 16:59, Rob wrote:
>
> > Fair enough. Where does *(xW)re:gs 'king' fit into this picture?
>
> It doesn't :). Seriously, *h3reg^- seems capable of yielding Narten
> forms, cf. RV 3sg. ré:s.t.i 'rules', 3sg. inj. ré:t. < *h3re:g^-t .

For

> an originally static root noun I would expect the following forms:
>
> nom. *h3ro:g^-s
> acc. *h3re:g^-m.
> gen. *h3reg^-s
> voc. *h3re:g^
>
> Typically, the accusative would have developed an analogical o-

grade

> form modelled on the vocalism of the nominative (like *pod-m. for
> **pe:d-m., the proportional equation being *h2ne:r : *h2ner-m. =

po:d-s

> : X). The reason why the 'king' word does not behave typically is,

I

> think, the vocative, with its atypically high frequency of use (in

any

> imaginable IE social setting "O king!" would have been several

orders of

> magnitude more frequent than "O foot!"). The vocative-supported *e:

not

> only remained in the accusative but also managed to spread to the
> remaining cases already in PIE.
>

Alternatively: the combining form *-ro:g^-s "-fixer" was less common
than *re:g^-s "king".


Torsten