On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 14:50:23 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<
jer@...> wrote:
>Also the Hittite ntr.pl. forms in -i must come from somewhere.
Agreed. The n.pl. in -i occurs not only in i-stems (where it
regularly reflects *-i-h2), but also in C-stems (e.g. nt-stem appanti,
l-stem ishiuli, r-stem kururi), where it may reflect the dual *-ih1.
There's also the compund noun huhha-hanna- "grandparents", where the
first member (huhha-) appears to be in the dual.
>It fits the
>dual of the other languages, so does the ntr.pl. -e of the enclitic stem
>-a-, and so do the -w- forms of the 1pl in the verb.
I'm not so sure about the enclitic. The n.pl forms are -at and -e,
the comm.pl. forms are -e, -at (-us, -as). -at is the n.sg. *od,
secondarily extended to the n.pl and even the comm.pl. The comm.pl.
-e is the plural *oy, and it's easy to see how it may have been
extended to the n.pl. My gut feeling is that it would be somewhat
unexpected to find a reflex of n.du. *oyh1 (?) where there is not a
trace of the expected n.pl. *ah2 (?).
As to the -w- forms in the 1pl., besides Hitt. 1sg. -mi, 1pl. -wen(i)
we have Luwian 1sg. -wi, 1pl. -man(i), so it's unlikely that this has
anything to do with the dual (also, we'd expect -a- instead of -e-
vocalism and no final -n(i) in Hittite if the 1pl. form were derived
from 1du. *-wh2ás or *-wh2á).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...