>I see two problems here.
>
>(1) The plural ending is not *-(e)s but *-es (*k^wones), and the *-e- >is
>not lost even in i/u-stem plurals like *-ej-es. Moreover, the >Loc.pl. is
>based on a nil-grade form: *k^wnsu, not your "*k^wonsu".
You're right, *k^wnsu. Wasn't thinking. Now I feel shame... Well, shame-time
is over. Back to shamelessness.
This wasn't the crux of my logic anyway. In regards to the plural *-es (or
rather *-es/*-(e)s-), when the ending is absolutely final (which it
overwhelmingly is), the *e wouldn't be lost. To boot, the presence of *e
would be doubly strengthened because of the need to distinguish the plural
from the singular in *-s. So in this sense, yes, it is always *-es.
However, if it were ever followed by a vowel-initial ending such as a
locative *-u, the *e would have a reason to drop away. Reconstructed *CCV-
(such as *ple-) appears to have formed in the same way (from an earlier
*pVle-). Thus an earlier *-es-u can become *-(@)su if accent falls on *u.
The accentuation on *u however would be non-original (because of zero-graded
*u). This accentuation would be established in the postAnatolian tonal phase
of IE most probably. The zero-grade *n that comes with it would also stem
from this late accentuation.
>You could claim that an original *k^wones-� became *k^wns�,
It would be something more bland, like:
*k^w�nes (bhi) => *k^wns-�
Just keep with me here. An immediate question here might be: "Why is the
accent of the new ending on a zero grade syllable?". I can't quite say for
sure but I have one idea that comes immediately to mind.
The process would have started very late in an IE very different from its
stressed IndoAnatolian ancestor. With the change of stress accent to tonal
accent in Late IE came some minor but important changes to the placement of
the accent itself which differ from the blessed stress-accent days.
One of the odd things I notice that can't be explained by my MidIE
penultimate stress accent theory is the placement of accent on adverbs.
Surely, the ancient state of affairs was that the adverb was entirely
unstressed, simply an enclitic, not a full word. This apparently changed in
postAnatolian Tonal IE where there often appears a yucky final accentuation,
things like *xep� (puke-o-rama!)... well that is, assuming that the Greek
accent is inheirited here (?). I imagine that if many adverbs were treated
with this final accent, including *-u adverbs, the accent would have also
spread to the new locative in *-u as well. Thus, the locative is treated
with an adverb accentuation which in itself is a late innovation! Cool huh?
Is it plausible? Dunno. It's an idle thought anyway. Please feel free to
flamb� me if I am off course.
>The Nom.pl. ending is not reduced when unstressed.
Not finally, but when preceding an accented vowel-initial suffix... you bet
your booty it is. :)
>I'd claim instead that *k^wn-s� is a compound-like postpositional >phrase,
>in which case vowel reduction is OK (cf. *k^wn-gWH�n- 'dog->slayer').
Maybe, but then how do we explain the reduced syllable at the end of
*k^wnsu? This zero-grade ending tells me that the accentuation cannot be
original in any way. This late accentuation appears to be the very basis for
your belief here. Your idea would make sense to me if it were **k^wns�u
instead, but it's not. The final syllable *-s� is just not full grade like
*-gWH�n.
>(2) There are some adverbs ending in *-u, but I can't recall any >actual
>locatives with this ending. When you say it's attested, what >exactly do
>you mean?
I remember there being *kWo-u "where?". Part of the basis for this, if I
recall, is supposed to be found in BaltoSlavic languages, for one. Maybe
Latvian /kur/ is derived from this? Maybe also in Sanskrit /kva/, /kutra/,
/kutah./? I know I've seen the reconstruction somewhere. Am I hallucinating?
Sanskrit /anu/ is an adverb, but with a locative meaning.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com