Re: [tied] (unknown)

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:15:44 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>Miguel wrote:
>
>>I wouldn't say "*-h3 in thematic nouns, *-h1 in athematics". Thematic
>neuters have *-oi (*-o-ih1 ?), m./f. i- and u-stems may just as easily
>have had *-ih3/*-uh3. It looks more like "*-h3 for animate nouns,
>*-h1 for inanimates".
>
>My question remains the same: Why posit both *-h1 and *-h3 if *-h1 alone does the job?

Because *-h3 does the job better in the case of the o-stems (Ved.
-a:u) and the oblique cases. The dat.abl.du. in *-bhio:(m) is best
explained as *-bhi-o-h3. The loc.du. (Av. -o:, Lith -au, OCS -u) can
be analyzed as -0 (the locative "ending") + *-h3- (= /xw/, the dual
marker) + -i (deictic particle) > -xwi > -xu, which should have given
*-oi-h3u in the o-stems (Grk. -oi-u-n, -oi-i-n), *-C-h3u > *-C-@...
elsewhere (I-I. -o:, Lith -au, OCS -u).

I realize that this analysis perforce leads to the conclusion that
loc.pl. *-su likewise comes from *-sw-i (Grk. -si), leading thus to
nom.pl. *-es < *-esw, explaining Arm. -k`, etc. etc., which you may
not be prepared to accept.

>If inanimates originally differed from animates, they did so by having *-i-h1 across the board (I don't wish to speculate whether this final *-h1 in neuters is of analogic origin). In consonantal masculine stems *-e (< *-h1e) is supported not only by Greek and Baltic,

Any info on <auguse>?

>but Celtic as well (OIr ríg '2 kings' < *re:ge), which is why I prefer to reconstruct *-h1e (with vowel dropped postvocalically) for the dual in general.

AFAIK, Old Irish only proves a front vowel (*-i: as much as *-e).

>>In any case, what's the diagnosis for reconstructing *-es AND *-oi AND
>*-h2 with the same function in the plural?
>
>The same function? As you doubtless know, inanimates had no real plural, *-(a)h2 being a collective formation (not restricted to inanimates, by the way).

OK, I take *-h2 back.

>ALL animate noun classes had plurals in *-es in PIE; *-oi is of pronominal origin. Pronouns constitute a restricted lexical class with plenty of idiosyncratic features; their morphology is basically non-nominal even if some convergence has occurred in various branches.

My analysis of the pronouns brings the two closer together, but I
realize the whole thing may be hard to follow/swallow. Maybe I should
try to explain it better.

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