Re: [tied] Risoe fo the Feminine (was: -osyo 3)

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

> >Is the analysis involving the numeral 'one' really wrong? Is *te-

sm-

> >o:y not the dative of a compound made of *te- + *sm-o-,

originally

> >meaning 'this one'?
>
> I think so. Hittite does not have this form, but it has
> pronominal oblique cases with interposed -ed(an)-, which
> might be linked to Slavic *ed-i:nU "1", Arm. ez "one, only"
> (PIE *h1edh- "one").

But is it not the second part of jedinU that means 'one'?

> >And has the feminine *te-sy-aH2-ay not in that
> >case lost an /-m-/ in the clustering (Johannes Schmidt again)?
>
> I don't think so. A simpler solution, I think, is that
> *tosyah2 is in fact the feminine form corresponding to masc.
> *tosyos, n. *tosyod (the source of gen. *tosyo). Gen.
> *tyosyah2 acquired an *-s, and *tosyah2i etc. were
> backformed on that.

But the enthusiasm for the 'one' solution for the Hittite forms
favours an analysis of the very same kind. And the stem of dat.-
loc.sg. ke:dani (ka:s 'this') is ke:-, cf. gen. ke:l, abl. ke:z and
instr. ke:t. The -d- even appears in the plural, dat.-loc.pl.
ke:das. Is that a good sign? And does it really invite
identification with the segment /ed(h)-/ of the other languages?

So, if there is "one" in the dative *tesmo:y, the ablative *tesmV:t
and the loc. *tesmi, why is it so bad for the feminine? In fact we
expect the "one" part also in the gen. masc.-ntr.. That should make
us derive *tesyo by reduction from older *tesmesyo. Unfortunately I
see no way of checking this.

Jens