Piotr:
>I said "collective", not "plural", since the *-h2 [-x] was
>originally a collective-forming suffix.
Alright, slight technicality - not a major one though. I'll try to remember
to say "collective" *-x from now on then to tickle the fancy of linguists.
>This is of course what Miguel means. It's likely that
>*k^ont-h2 was, historically speaking, a double collective,
>just as Modern English <child-r-en> is a doubly marked
>plural.
A connection between "child-r-en" and *k^on-t-x is, I think, a good one.
Even so, if Miguel was simply up in arms over my mistake in terminology,
what was his arguement again? Let me rephrase my idea for him then:
I feel that *-i: was derived from the misanalysis of an earlier *t:wai-x
"two", with a !COLLECTIVE! marker *-x, as *t:wa-ix. This eventually produced
*dwo-i: as well as the dual marker *-i: which was secondarily placed on the
word for "twenty".
Whether I say plural or collective, it hardly affects my theory on these
underlying little pokemon etymons... so was Miguel protesting anything
important in the end?
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com