On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:46:44 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<
jer@...> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> 1) the -u also appears in non-final position (e.g. dual G *-ous etc.).
>
>That looks like a mistake. The only language distinguishging between
>gen.du. and loc.du. appears to be Avestan, where the two are /-{ao}/ and
>/-o:/ respectively. The gen. must be Proto-Iranian *-a:h, IIr. *-a:s,
>while the loc. could be either *-ah or *-au. The obvious solution is
>gen. *-oHs vs. loc. *-oHu.
But the Skt. GL du. is -o:s (*-aus < *-ous).
>This gives a nice gen. with a well-known
>marker, and a loc. du. quite on a par with loc.pl. *-s-u, supposing the
>laryngeal to be the marker of the (animate?) dual.
Yes, *-xW (*-h3) fulfills (almost) the same role in the dual oblique as
*-sW (*-s) in the plural oblique.
In theory, we would expect:
pl. (them.) du. (them.)
DAb. *-bhi-o-sW *-oy-o-sW *-bhi-o-xW *-oy-o-xW
> *-bhios > *-oy(bhi)os > *-bhio:(m) > *-oy(bhi)o:(m)
Ins. *-bhi-sW *-oy-sW *-bhi-xW *-oy-xW
> *-bhis > *-o:ys -- --
Loc. *-sW-i *-oy-sW-i *-xW-i *-oy-xW-i
> *-su > *-oysu > *-ou > *-oyh3u(m)
The genitive has no plural analogue: it is *-xW-s > *-ous (them. *-oy-xW-s
> *-oyous).
This explains the attested forms:
Skt: them.
GL -os -ayos (note short /a/, so *-oy-h3-s, not *oy-oh3-s!)
ID -bhya:m -a:-bhya:m (< a:-stems)
Avestan:
G -å (*-o:s)
L -o: (*-ou)
ID -bya (*-bhyo:)
OCS:
GL -u (*-ou(s))
ID -ma (*-ma:)
Lith.
GL -au (*-ou)
ID -m (*-m-)
Greek:
GLDI -oiin < -oiun (< *-oy-h3u-m)
The /o/ in G. *-(oy)ous (or *-(oy)o:s) is unexpected. The result of
syllabic */&3/ should have been /o/ in Greek, but /a/ or /i/ elsewhere.
I think the solution has already been provided by Jens. His *R (the
"causative morpheme") syllabifies as /o/ everywhere, not just in Greek.
The dual oblique suffix was therefore voiced *RW (*GW), as expected in my
"asyllabic affix voicing theory" for an asyllabic nominal suffix (or
prefix, such as "causative" *R) (cf. nominative *-s > *-z). [This implies
that *h3 was in my opinion itself not normally voiced].
As to the NA forms, we have animate *-o:(u), neuter *-oyh1 in the o-stems,
*-ih1 or *-(y)e in the consonant stems.
I must say that Jens' explanation of the o-stem animate forms is attractive
(*-o-He > *-o:(u), as in the Skt. 1/2rd. person perfect of stems ending in
a laryngeal, i.e. *-VH-h2a, *-VH-e > *-o:u > -au).
My explanation, however, is that the dual morpheme was **-iku, oblique
**-iki (cf. plural **-atu > *-es, obl. **-ati > *-ey, as e.g. in the
personal pronouns *mésW ~ *(m)wéy, *úsW ~ *sWéy). This developed by
regular soundlaws that I have explained elsewhere into o-stem *-o-h3, and
inanimate (< oblique) *-íh1 (HD), *-ih1 (AD) and *-ye(:)h1 (PD) (*-éh1
(HD), *-(u)h1 (AD), *-e(:)h1 (PD) after *w). The PD form lost the
laryngeal (after long vowel?, sandhi?), giving attested *-ye (e.g. Greek
osse < *okW-ye) and *-e. The pronominal forms are *wéh1 [< oblique
*mu-íki, like *wéy < *mu-áti] and *(y)uh3 [< casus rectus *(t)u-íku, like
*(y)úsW < *(t)u-átu].
>> I think we're rather forced to assume that the Kartvelians had no idea
>> the
>> IE word was a dual. They borrowed the Semitic word *?arba¿- "4" as "8",
>> and the PIE word *ok^toxW "8" as "4".
>
>I'd rather say this looks like a linguistic community with a high degree
>of awareness of the power of the dual. It looks to me as if pre-Kartvelian
>used the singular of the IE dual word for 'eight' in the reasonable
>meaning 'four', and the dual of the Semitic word for 'four' in the meaning
>'eight', again quite a reasonable thing.
But Proto-Kartvelian had no dual.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...