Re: Final voicing (2)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 May 2003 04:26:20 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
> wrote:
>
> >We have:
> >
> >*-z nom.sg., perhaps associated with *so
> >*-d n.sg., perhaps associated with *to
> >*-g in *h1ég "I", perhaps associated with stative *-h2(a) (< **-

k)

> >*-dh(w)- (< *-dg(W)??) 2pl. middle vs. 2sg. stative *-th2(a) (<

**-tk)

> >
> >It would be nice to know the exact conditions (2sg. *-s(i) and f.
> >*-(i)h2, as well as pf. *-h2(a), *-th2(a) are voiceless; coll. *-

h2

> >could have both, as there is no way of knowing that **-G didn't

give

> >*-h2, just like **-z gives *-s).
>
> With the exception of the dubious 2pl. middle (and we might add the
> 2sg. athematic imperative in *-dhi), the distribution seems to be:
> voicing occurs in (pro-)nominal forms, verbal forms have voiceless
> endings. If verbs were sentence final (SOV), that makes sense.

Nice going, Miguel! I am not sarcastic. While you're ticking, could
you also get the verbal 1sg *-h2 to be voiced and then really make
*-o: come from *-o-h2? Could it be done by adding a "primary
marker", at least that would stop it from being word-final? In the
external evidence we seem to have a velar ending in the sg. and -m-
in the du./pl. We need that gap to be bridged. By introducing word
order you may indeed be on to something.

Jens