Re: [tied] Germanic nominal declensions

> >>
> >> The nominative in *-oi is unattested in Germanic. PIE *-o:s

would have

> >> given PGmc. *-o:z, which explains Goth -o:s and ON -ar, but not

OE -as, OS

> >> -os. The reconstruction is thus:
> >>
> >> PIE *-ó:ses *-o:siz
> >> *'-o:ses *-o:ziz
> >>
> >> which explains all the forms (Goth. -o:ss > -o:s, ON *-o:ziz > -

arr > -ar,

> >> OE/OS *-o:siz > *-as). OHG -a is the acc. form.
> >
> >The OE and OSax. forms are certainly strange and seem to require

some

> >kind of "extension" to prevent the *s from word-final voicing

(already

> >in PGmc.!). *-iz would do the trick, but I suspect the whole

affair is

> >internal to Germanic and there's no need to drag in anything as

risky as

> >"PIE" *-o:ses. I'd sooner consider a more conservative solution: *-

o-es

> > > *-o:s ~ *-o:s-es > *-o:z ~ *-o:siz with a doubly marked variant

of

> >the plural that arose within Germanic.
>
> Did I not mention Skt. -a:sas? Apparently not. There are several
> possibilities:
>
> (1) Skt. and Germanic independently added -es to the PIE pl. ending

*-o:s

>
> (2) PIE already had a variant *-o:s-es, inherited by Skt. and Gmc.,

lost

> elsewhere.
>
> (3) The Skt. and Gmc. forms are not related: Gmc. being an

innovation *-o:s

> + *-es, but Skt. continuing *-os-es, where *-os would be the old

nom.pl.

> ending (stressed thematic vowel + unstressed *-es > post-zero-grade

*-os

> [cf. Gsg. *-é-esyo > *-ósyo, Lsg. *-é-ei > *-oi vs. Dsg. *-e-éi > *-

o-éi >

> *-o:i]), which, for understandable reasons [confusion with Nsg.],

was

> either extended with *-es or replaced by newly created *-o + *-es >

*-o:s

> [both present in Sanskrit].
>
> (4) The Skt. and Gmc. forms _are_ related, both from *-oses as per
> possibility (3), but in Germanic, *-oses > *-o:ses by

analogy/merger with

> *-o:s.
>

(5) Some IA-speakers brought the bad habit of the extra -es with
them to Thuringia, where they continued their habit in their newly
acquired language (Proto-West Germanic).

Torsten