Re: [tied] The disappearance of *-s -- The saga continues

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> I thought you thought the *-s in the acc.pl. _did_ lengthen,
> at least it was my impression that you reconstructed o-stem
> acc.pl *-o:ms (*-o:ns).

I do posit IE *-o:ns or *-o:ms, bu that does not mean that the
pluralizing *-s lengthens. The other cases of the thematic
declension (which is best preserved with pronouns) have a stem in *-
oy- in the plural, so I would assume the acc.pl. proceeds from *-oy-
m-s. This brings *tóy in line with *tóy-s-o::m, *tóy-bhyos, *tó::ys
(itself perhaps from earlier *tóy-bhis, though I wouldn't know by
what rules), *tóy-su.

> In any case, if *-ms doesn't lengthen a previous /o/, /i/ or
> /u/ at the PIE level, another possibility to explain the
> non-loss of *-s in the acc.pl. is that the -s was added
> _after_ the lengthening rule _and_ after the
> loss-of-/s/-after-sonorants rule. I at least think that the
> *-s in the acc.pl., dat/abl.pl., ins.pl. and loc.pl. is
> secondary, although it's hard to establish exactly _when_ it
> was added. Could have been pretty early.

You can always imagine that the facts of the language are non-
original and invent some other language and explain that instead. I
have worked out what the minimum requirements are if they are in
essence accepted as we find them.

Jens