>>> We have nom. dual thematic *-eh3
>>
>>No only you do.
>
> Not at all. *-eh3 is a standard reconstruction. I'm amazed
> that you think it's my idea.
Well of course it's not hard to place laryngeals everywhere *o
is if you don't follow strict guidelines so I guess I can't expect
it to be "just your idea". Since Jens and you are twins seperated
at birth, it all makes perfect sense :) You've never proven why the
laryngeal is supposed to be there nor can you. The Anatolian
evidence sense nothing so you just assume that it's there. I don't
work like that. It is otherwise *-o:-.
> To go no further than the people on this group, two years
> ago Jens wrote: "A popular theory will have it that the dual
> marker of non-neuters in PIE was *-H1, or an alternation of
> *-H1e and *-H1. The paper aims to demonstrate that this
> theory runs counter to both facts and theories of a more
> basic character.
And two years later, the anti-consensus, conspiracy theory still
doesn't hold. I won't even begin to question why we must listen
to a case to be made based on an "assumption of non-alternating
*e as [*h3's] most prominent word-final manifestation". Everything
about the premise is immediately ad hoc. Why would a clearly
labialized phoneme become *e instead of *o? Oh yes, because it's
'voiced'... wink, wink, just believe that it's voiced because
we need it to be to support my shakey theory. Ignore the fact
that there's no unambiguous data to back that claim up, just like
there's no real data to back the *-h3 claim up before it, just like
there's no data to back up a long series of endless assertions that
are used to build a nice flammable straw construct that just needs
a tiny modicum of common sense to burn it right down.
> As Jens says in that abstract, and as I said in the part you
> snipped, *h3 is demanded by the personal pronouns.
Demanded by nothing. It's been a long time since Indo-European
embraced true long vowels... maybe you should too. No, not
every instance of *o: "demands" *eh3. It only demands it if,
say, Hittite shows /h/ in that position. There is no
unambiguous attestation demonstrating a dual in **-eh3 and it's
been years that you've been holding on to this belief. Ergo, I
feel no urgency to adopt your view.
> For the thematic NA dual, *-oh3 is the only possibility if we
> take the thematic vowel rule seriously: *h1 and *h2 are
> voiceless, so they would have given *-eh1 > -e: and *-eh2 >
> -a:. Only *h3 could have given -o: (both by its colouring
> effect and by its voicedness).
Again, more assumptions built on more assumptions built on more
assumptions. A house of cards.
You *assume* that *-o:- is *-eh3- and therefore to keep this
fantasy alive, you then assume that *h3 must surely be voiced
based on more nebulous data that we've sifted through a million and
one times. Yes, yes, /pibati/ is supposed to show *h3 is voiced
somehow but only by ignoring the discongruence of the comparative
data with Latin /bibere/. And... well that's all that one has
for that arguement and then nothing to clearly show after that
that a laryngeal is "demanded", let alone a voiced one. Whatever.
= gLeN