Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Glen Gordon wrote:

>
> Jens:
> >This is quite amusing,
>
> You are easily amused.

This *is* exquisite.

> >Many believe that the old functions of the number markers have been
> >retained outside Anatolian and have merged in Anatolian (and some of
> >the non-Anatolian languages). That scenario offers no problems I can
> >see.
>
> Well, it's doubtful that you'd ever see problems with your own theories
> even if they hit you on the head. It's unlikely to me that Anatolian
> would go eeney-meeney-meiney-moh and randomly choose which
> endings are to be singular and which are to be plural. This is equally
> problematic.

Right, and therefore you do not suggest that. Now, since the obvious lack
of motivation stops you from making singular and plural forms come from an
undifferentiated source, why does the same lack of motivation not stop you
from deriving the dual and plural forms from a common source? This refuted
itself.

>
> >And why can we establish element functions between IE animate dual
> >markers and non-IE dual markers if none of them ever were dual markers in
> >a shared past?
>
> Elaborate.

That's what I did in the parts of my posts you did not quote. I can be
more detailed if I have to, but in this I am mot really in opposition to
most others who have looked at the number morphemes of IE and its
relatives.

Jens