Re: [tied] *h3 (More deja-vu)

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 15830
Date: 2002-10-01

On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 02:12:53 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>> I analyze it as *dwi- (the compound form of "2") > *h1wi-, followed by
>> *dk^m.tih1 > *h1k^m.tih1, the dual of "decad", where the first two *h1's
>> have
>> (irregularly) developed from *d, and were most likely phonetically [?],
>> not [h].
>> The interpretation as two morphemes in concord I think fails becuase the
>> n.du.
>> of "2" is *dwoih1.
>You could say by the same logic that the stem of 'two' being *dwo-, its
>compositional form cannot be *dwi-, but it is. Thus, if a stem *dwo- can
>appear as *dwi- in the first part of a compound, couldn't an inflected
>form *dwo-yH1 do the same in a tight juxtaposition like the ones we have
>in the inflected decadic numerals?

I suppose it could, except that I've never seen an inflected compositional form.

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal