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

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:23:28 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>[JER:]
>> >But is it not the second part of jedinU that means 'one'?
>>
>> Yes (*oihnos), but there is a first part, and that must have
>> meant something too. That the second part means "1" does not
>> exclude in the least that the first part had a similar
>> meaning (cf. English "only one" = Pol. jedyny = Arm. ez).
>
>Well, nor does it support it very much. Does the v- of Lith. víenas
>also mean 'one'? If you say 'only one' in a number of other
>languages besides English you do not necessarily get old words
>meaning 'one': nur eins, slechts een, kun en, bara en, tol'ko odin,
>seulement un, sólo uno.

The point was that "only" and "one" are etymologically
connected. Therefore, in linguistics, 1 + 1 can be only 1.

>> >But the enthusiasm for the 'one' solution for the Hittite forms
>> >favours an analysis of the very same kind.
>>
>> I don't follow.
>
>In your own analysis of the Hittite pronouns you give the original
>form the very same structure with an embedded 'one' which you reject
>for PIE.

I don't. It was a bit of carelessness on my part. You
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'?

And, forgetting your question was stated in the negative, I
replied:

> I think so.

Meaning: I agree that *-sm- *does* come from "1" in the
masculine: look at Hittite, it doesn't have *-sm-, but it
_also_ has an element in the exact same spot, and which also
means "1".

>And The form *tosyaH2 does not add up. It would not be the feminine
>genitive, but the masculine-neuter genitive accidentally possessing
>something in the feminine, so it completely breaks the system.

You're right. It's simply *tosyo, made feminine by
replacing the ending *-o [or earlier *-os] with the fem.
gen. *-ah2os.

> > >And does it really invite
>> >identification with the segment /ed(h)-/ of the other languages?
>>
>> I think it does. Hittite -ed- appears only in pronouns, and
>> only in the dative/locative and the ablative/instrumental
>> cases. In other words, *exactly* in the same places where
>> we find *-sm- in PIE.
>
>No, that is very optimistic assessment.
>
>If the plural cases with the -d- count for nothing anyway, a much
>smoother assessment of the facts is this:
>
>The dative-locative ke:dani has the same stem ke:- as all the weak
>cases, and also contains the case ending -i of precisely this case.
>That leaves a segment -dan-.

There simply is no segment -dan-. There's a segment -an-.

Here's the evidence:

pp 1sg. abl.: amm-ed-az
pp 1pl. abl.: anz-ed-az
pp 2sg. abl.: tu-ed-az
pp 2pl. abl.: sum-ed-az
anaph. abl.: e-(e)d-ez
anaph. dat.: e-(e)d-an-i
anaph. loc.: e-(e)d-i
anaph.pl.obl.: e-(e)d-as
dem. dat/loc.: ke-(e)d-an-i, ape-(e)d-an-i
dem. dat/loc.: ke-(e)d-an-d(a) [but ap(e)-it]
dem. pl. obl.: ke-(e)d-as, ape-(e)das
rel. dat/loc.: kue-(e)d-an-i
rel. pl. obl.: kue-e)d-as

There's clearly no other explanation than assuming a
morpheme *-ed- in _all_ these forms. A morpheme -an-
appears in the dative of some of the pronouns.

> > >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?
>>
>> It's not bad. It's just less well attested: Baltic and
>> Slavic have *-sm- in the dat/loc/ins masculine/neuter, but
>> not a trace of it in the feminine.

I see you completely ignored this crucial point.

>And less obvious
>> phonetically: it requires an ad-hoc reduction of *-smy- >
>> *-sy-.
>
>Yes, that's the point. That is not new information.
>
>> And would that be exclusively athematic, when the
>> masculine "equivalent" [with the exception of loc. *esmi-n,
>> *tosmin, etc.] is (largely) thematic?
>
>That was also a point I was making. It would be exactly like devá- :
>deví:-, though I did not present it that clearly. This could be one
>of the few points where important expectations are really met.
>
>(I'll continue this is a new posting.)

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