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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 1:40 AM
Subject: 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,

How? I don't understand...

>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).

Yeah, but couldn't this be analogical to o- and eh2-stems? Whence else -i:n
and -i:s etc. from the same ending *-ins?

> >, 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.

In Gothic? Why not in *-eh2ns > *-a:ns > *-o:ns then? Since *a: and *o:
merge in Germanic shouldn't *-eh2ns > *-a:ns and *-o:ns produce the same
ending?

Mate