On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:04:40 +0000, Glen Gordon <
glengordon01@...>
wrote:
>With the variant with *sw-, if we can be more assured of it than
>Melchert, what guarantee is there that this is not just the plural
>of *swe as I said? You just tack on a plural *-es or dual *-ih and
>there you have it. No need for your **tuatu, don't you agree?
The dual and plural forms of the 2nd and 3rd person should normally have
merged (**suatu, **tuatu regularly *s(W)ésW, **suati, **tuati > *sWéy, acc.
**tuatu-má/*suatu-má > *sWsmé), which is exactly what we see in the Hittite
oblique -smas "you/them" (*-sWsmé(s)), and e.g. in the Greek 2 du. sphó:
"you two" and 3.pl. (< 3du.?) refl. *sphe-es (spheîs) "they themselves"
(Greek *sWh3wé > *sphe-, with enclitic (> nominative) *sph-o-h3, like
*n.h3wé ~> *noh3 > Grk. <no:> "we two").
The damage was minimized by the irregular development of the 2pl. nom.
(*úsW instead of **sésW, also *usmé ~ *wos instead of *sWsmé [= Hitt. smas,
Av. xs^ma] ~ **sWos), and the semantic development of the 3rd. p. pronoun
into a reflexive (except in Hittite), with only oblique forms.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...