Re: [tied] Animate Dual in -h3 (was: IE Roots)

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 03:47:27 +0000, Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
>Richard:
>>He's talking about animate duals in general, and mostly about
>>Sanskrit. I must admit I had to refer back to
>><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14994>
>>for the locative dual.
>
>Yes, yes, I figured that out. And as I say, there's nothing that
>forces us to conclude that there _must_ be *h3 in this ending.
>We know that Sanskrit /u/ is not a normal reflex of any laryngeal
>which is probably why we don't often see **-oh3 reconstructed.
>This is all a very unlikely idea concocted by Miguel.

I certainly didn't invent it. *-oh3 is a standard reconstruction of the
PIE dual.

As I said in my previous message:

>Yes, it must be *-oh3, or at least a labialized laryngeal. The NA form
>varies in Skt. between -a: and -a:u. The same /u/ appears in the genitive
>*-ous (< *-&3-s) and locative *-ou (*-&3-u < *-xW-i), as well as in the
>Greek o-stem oblique form -oiin < -oiun (*-oy-&3-m).

As I fully expected, the point I was making has not been addressed. If the
dual consists simply of lengthening or *-h1, where do those /u/'s come
from? One more point: why was the PIE dual *ok^toh3 borrowed into
Kartvelian as *os^txw?

The above also contained one mistake, and one point which is unorthodox
from the point of view of standard laryngeal theory. I had hoped someone
would have noticed...


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