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

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:07:41 +0200, Mate Kapovic
<mkapovic@...> wrote:

>
>----- 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)

But -a:s and -a:n _are_ the same thing, basically, cf.
i-stem acc.pl. masc. -i:n vs. fem. -i:s, u-stem -u:n/-u:s
and r-stem -r:n/-r:s (from *-ins, *-uns, *-rns).

>, and in Gothic they would also give the same thing and
>we have -o:s and -ans (directly attesting PIE short *-o-!).

Could be Osthoff shortening.

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