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

From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 31898
Date: 2004-04-13

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:28:15 +0000, elmeras2000
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> >[JER:]
> >> >You can always imagine that the facts of the language are non-
> >> >original and invent some other language and explain that instead.
> >[MCV:]
> >> I'm not inventing anything.  Everybody knows that the
> >> acc.pl. comes from *-m plus *-s.  Isn't it obvious?
> >
> >Yes, that's why I want the *-s to be there, while I observe you
> >pulling it off.
>
> No.  I'm adding it.

Yes, you have to add it, because you stroke it from the evidence in the
first place. I just accept it where I see it. I do see what you mean
though: The form *toy is plural already, so the accusative plural may be
expected to add only an accusative marker, which would give *toy-m. If we
find *to:ms, it may be that *toy-m developed into *to:m before the extra
*-s was added (if it was).

>
> >> What we find is an ins.pl. in *-o:ys, which _could_ mean
> >> that the "plural" *-s _did_ have a lengthening effect, and
> >> an acc.pl. in *-o:ms which _could_ mean the same thing.  So,
> >> unless you can show convincingly that those possibilities do
> >> not apply, I wouldn't exclude them from consideration.
> >
> >If the acc.pl. contained a lengthening sibilant we could not have
> >forms like *kWet-ur-m.s (Ved. catúras, Lith. ke~turis), but would
> >have to have something ending in *-wor-m.s . There are no acc.pl.
> >forms of this structure, ergo its *-s did not lengthen.
>
> Doesn't follow.  I could reconstruct *kWet-wér-ms >
> (lengthening, zero grade) kWtwé:rms > (shortening before
> CCC) *kWtwérms > (*wé > *ú) *kW(e)túrm.s > catúras.
> A form like Arm. c^`ors (*kWét-wor-ms) represents the
> analogical type of acc.pl., which is simply the acc.sg. +
> *-s.

But wé does not yield ú, it stays wé. You are not seriously reasoning with
the accusative singular of the word for 'four', are you?

Jens