On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:38:05 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<
gpiotr@...> wrote:
>The ending *-s occurs in the Nom.sg., and so does a lengthened vowel, but the fact that they occur in the same environment doesn't automatically establish a cause-and-effect relation between them.
>
>*-s does not cause lengthening in genitives like *gHosteis, *suHnous or *drous (not to mention thematic *-o-s, which may just not be ancient enough).
In my unorthodox way, I'm not sure the genitive *-s is the same
sibilant as the nominative *-s (which I take to have been **-z).
In any case, the lengthening rule did not apply to *-Vs endings (nom.
*-is, *-us, *-os), only to *-Cs (where I'll define C to exclude
*-(V)y- and *-(V)w-).
[And speaking of *ei ~ *i, *eu ~ *u Ablaut, has anyone ever made the
suggestion that this may in fact reflect an older stage **i: ~ **i,
**u: ~ *u? The idea doesn't seem so strange to me: /i:/ > /ai/ and
/u:/ > /au/ are perfectly commonplace developments [e.g. English], and
so is shortening of unstressed long vowels [e.g. English again].
So what we know as *ei ~ *i, *eu ~ *u Ablaut may have developed as:
*i: > *i (unstressed)
*i: > *ai > *ei (stressed)
*u: > *u (unstressed)
*u: > *au > *eu (stressed)
Just a thought.]
>On the other hand, we have long-vowelled neuter Nom.-Accs. like *wedo:r, *ph2uo:r, *ke:r(d).
I was going to say something about *k^e:r(d) (Hitt. <kir>) in my
previous message, but I left it out in the end. I see it as
confirming evidence that nom.sg. *-s was voiced (voiced *-d lengthens
the vowel, too). Same goes for nom. *pern > *pe:r(r) [with **-n > *-r
and lengthening caused by voiced-final *-Cr] > Hitt. <pir>.
As to *wedo:r and *ph2uo:r, I don't think they are the normal
nom./acc. forms (which are *wodr and *pah2wr). Rasmussen thinks they
are old collectives (*weder + *-h2, *peh2uer + *-h2), and that *-h2
has the same lengthening effect as nom.sg. *-s, but I'm not sure I
agree (although Hitt. <wida:r> is indeed the coll. (n.pl.) form).
>What I'm gonna say now is unorthodox, but -- shh... -- I doubt if *-eh2 > *-a: is true word-finally. Compensatory lengthening preserves syllable weight, and final consonants are typically "weightless" (non-moraic) under normal conditions. I'd rather expect *-e:h2 > *-a:h2 > *-a: and *-eh2 > *-ah2 > *-a (Nom. and Voc., respectively, exactly like *ph2te:r, Voc. *ph2ter, cf. z^ena vs. z^eno in Slavic). Greek also reflects unlengthened Nom./Acc. coll. n. *-ah2 > *-a (cf. eugene:s m./f. vs. eugenes n.).
Interesting. But what about Latin short -a in the nom.sg.?
>It's extremely doubtful if Latin -ik-s can be regarded as a direct reflex of *-ih2-s. Martinet was a great enthusiast of "laryngeal hardening" in derivations like *seneh2-s > senex (: *seneh2-to-s > sena:tus), but these analyses have been shown to be flawed in too many respects to be taken seriously.
I've only seen this from Martinet's side (and that only in a rather
superficial fashion: his "Des steppes aux océans"), but the only flaw
I can independently discover is Skt. sanaj- "old". As to feminine
-ix, what's wrong with it? BTW, have you seen Rasmussen's article
about "laryngeal hardening" in Slavic [bic^I, bric^I, kljuc^I, zlUc^I,
vrac^I]?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...