Re: [tied] The centum-word.

----- Original Message -----

From: Glen Gordon

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 8:22 AM

Subject: [tied] The centum-word.

Glen:
>>> Thus, a singular stem *dek^m- versus a plural stem *k^ont-. I do not need to reconstruct **penkweH- because the length is caused by analogy with the lower decads.

Miguel:
>> Which got their length from...?

Glen:

> The dual.

 

This is questionable. First, "20" shows a formative pattern different from that of the higher decads, also in languages that display the "pre-k^ont-" lengthening very clearly (e.g. Gk. (e)wí:-kosi/-kati vs. penté:-konta) -- so "20" doesn't appear to be a very good starting-point for a chain of analogic changes. Secondly, the length of the first *i: in *wi:k^nti: can hardly reflect a dual inflection. In composition, the uninflected form *wi- would have been used, and **(d)wih1- would be an unlikely dual anyway. If we get *wi:- rather than *wi- in most branches, this is most likely due to compensatory lengthening.

 

If you wanted to defend analogical length, the only viable initiator would be "30", where the conflation of the collective *tri-h2 {"ten"-COLLECTIVE} with the compound *tri-{"decad"} could result in something like *trih2-k^ont- > Gk. triákonta. Notice that we _must_ posit *trih2- for Greek, since compensatory lengthening in *tridk^ont- would have yielded *tri:konta. We would have to assume that the length in Gk. pente:konta is later than the loss of *h2 in pre-Greek, and that it arose from contraction (*-e-á- > -é:-) in *pente-á-konta (after <tri-á-konta> and, also analogical, <tettar-á-konta>). Then the <e:> of <pente:konta> would have infected the upper decads, which all show <-e:konta>. I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out possible courses to follow. As for my personal opinion, I regard the compensatory lengthening solution in cases like *penkWe:k^ont- (the Greek solution won't work for Indo-Iranian) or *wi:k^nti: as elegant and plausible, but there are many branch-specific problems that this theory leaves unsolved.

Miguel:

>> *dwi- is a form found only in composition. The independent form *dwoh3 is a dual, not a plural.

Glen:

As for *dwi-, there is also *dwoiH1, already just mentioned. Secondly, *dwoH3 is usually written *dwo:u but, whatever.

 

To be precise, the free form is the thematic stem *dw-o- with the expected animate or inanimate dual endings (no matter how you write them) of thematic nominals.

 

Piotr