Re: [tied] PIE *h3 and PPIE **n

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 02:44:33 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>
>>>Yes! A person by the name of Hans-Joachim Alscher
>>
>>Alscher's rule is actually: -CnT > -Cr(T), which is not quite my rule
>>-n > -r, -m(V)n > -m(V)n, nor quite Martinet's rule -n > -r, -nt > >-n.
>
>Yes, I know but it is similar enough to our wonderful rule to bear mention.
>The *T is unnecessary of course.

But an optional (C) [i.e. *-n(C) > *-r(C)] wouldn't hurt (considering
Ved. ásrk "blood" or yákrt "liver").

>>>Hmm... Doesn't Toch.A. have -ma"s & -c for 1pp & 2pp? This looks >>awfully
>>>assymetrical unless maybe something got replaced in the 2pp >>as opposed
>>>to the 1pp. In which case, we shouldn't expect TochB -cer >>to be directly
>>>reflective of IE. What is the 1pp in TochB?
>>
>>-m(o)
>
>Hmmm. It doesn't look promising when we have TochA -ma"s/-c and TochB
>-mo/-cer. The 1pp and 2pp are different forms (blech!). We should expect the
>1pp and 2pp to rhyme like it does in IE (even if it is *-men/*-ten). Does
>TochB 2pp rhyme with 3pp, I wonder? What is the 3pp in TochB? Is it -er
>maybe? Or is there a plural marker -er (-cer <? protoTocharian *-c(-er))?

Toch A Toch B

active present
-m -u, -w
-t -t(o)
-s. -m.
-mäs -m(o)
-c -cer
-ñc -m.

active imperfect
-m
-t(o)
-0
-m(o)
-cer
-m.
active preterit
-wa: -wa
-s.t -sta
-0 -0
-mäs -m(o)
-s -s(o)
-r -r, -re

middle present
-ma:r -ma:r
-ta:r -ta:r
-tär -tär
-mtär -mt(t)är
-cär -tär
-ntär -ntär

middle preterit
-(w)e -mai
-te -tai
-t -te
-mät -mt(t)e
-c -t(o)
-nt -nte

A lot could be said about some of these forms. For the present
discussion, it's relevant that Toch. A. doesn't have separate
imperfect forms, while Toch. B. has them only for a few persons (1sg.,
3sg.). The Toch. A. pl. endings go back to "primary" *-mesi, *-te,
*-enti (cf. Vedic -masi, -tha, -anti). The Toch B. pl. endings go
back to "secondary" *-mes (or *-men, or *-me), *-te:r, *-nt (> *-0,
with -m. [< *nu ?] added secondarily).


[on **suHn^us:]

>The *-n- in *suxnu- is a verbal infix seen a million times before
>(*sux-n-u-) while *-yo- is another very common ending derived from the
>relative pronoun *yos. It is attached to many nouns. There is no **-yu-
>ending

Exactly.

>and even so, where else is /huios/ attested?

Tocharian A <se>, B. <soy> (< *soius < *suius). Maybe Armenian <ustr>
(influenced by <dustr> "daughter").

>Further, there is no need to assume that *nem- and *em- are related just
>because they may hold similar meanings. There is no **yem- like you expect
>with your "dual-state" rule.

There is.


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