Re: [tied] Catching up again...

On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:19:31 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>Balto-Slavic *intonations* don't, as far as I'm aware, demonstrate laryngeals in the dual endings.

That is Beekes' (and Kortlandt's) view (e.g. Lith o-stem du. -u`).
I'm frankly not well versed enough in B.-S. accentology to judge the
merits of that position, except that it appears to give the correct
results in the nominal forms I have looked at (ins.sg., for instance).

> If you believe otherwise, show me the evidence. Long vowels do not always result from compensatory lengthening. Why not contraction, e.g. *-o: < *-o-e?
>
>In Greek duals there is so much analogy at play (cf. N.du. no:e, spho:e with -e borrowed from consonantal stems) that it's hard to believe that these particular forme should be very archaic while everything else (logoin, etc., with no hiatus) is secondary.

logoin < logoiin ~ logoiun (both attested, I think).

>The Kartvelian form doesn't prove much about PIE. Anyway, if *ok^to: 'eight' is a dual, the singular should have been **ok^tos 'four'. The assumption that the Proto-Kartvelians borrowed a dual form with the meaning of the corresponding singular is odd and had better be very carefully justified.

The oddity is diminished (increased?) by the fact that Semitic *arba3-
"4" gives the Kartvelian word for "8", *arwa-. I'd have to look up
Alexis Manaster-Ramer's article to see what he says about this again.

>As for getting rid of *h3, I'll give you my reasons; just allow me a little time.

Dobrze, czekam.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...