Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:49:54 +0000, Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
>No wonder I'm confused about the dual pronominal endings. It seems no
>one can agree on these supposedly "ancient" endings.
>
>Miguel says they are: -was, -tHas and -tes.

If you'd read my message, you'd know that I now reconstruct them as:

*-wh3os, *-th3os, *-tes / *-wh3o, *-th3o, *-te

>This link (http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/idgmorph.htm)
>says they are: -wo-, -tHo- and -te-.

That is correct.

>Meanwhile, Dr. Steven Schaufele says something entirely different
>(http://www.linguistlist.org/~ask-ling/archive-1997.5/msg00130.html)
>and claims they are: -wes, -tHos- and -tes.

This too is consistent with the data.

What we can reconstruct directly (for the forms ending in -s) is: *-wVs,
*-tHVs, *-tes. The rest is interpretation.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...