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

----- Original Message -----
From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:22 AM
Subject: 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.

I don't see why some linguists reconstruct *-o:ns in the A. pl. of o-stems.
Structuraly, we would expect *-o-ns like *-u-ns and *-i-ns in u- and
i-stems. Also, I don't see how can we get different endings in A. pl. for o-
and eh2-stems in Sanskrit and Gothic if we reconstruct o-stems as *-o:ns.
In Sanskrit *-eh2ns > *-a:ns and *-o:ns would give the same thing (and we
have -a:s and -a:n), and in Gothic they would also give the same thing and
we have -o:s and -ans (directly attesting PIE short *-o-!). Sanskrit -a:n
would have to have an analogical length from N. pl.

Mate