Re: [tied] Genitive/Thematic confusion: (was: The Rise of Feminines)

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

> The problem is that it may not
> be possible to compare the acc.pl. with anything else: it's
> the only desinence of the shape *-Ns that we have. [...]

> The nom.sg. *-s (< *-z) always lengthens (nom.sg. hasti: <
> *hastins),

The suffix of n-stems is not justv /n/ in IE, so this is analogical:
n-stems formed to a- stems have nom. -a:, so n-stems formed to i-
stems get -i: by simple analogy. No necessary phonetic rule in this.

> and so does the *-s- of the s-aorist

That is not a case of final nasal + sibilant.

> (and in the
> case of -N-s-, of the desiderative: han -> ji-gha:M-sa-ti).

That is not lengthening, but the product of sonant nasal +
laryngeal, IE *gWhí-gWhn.-H1se-ti > IIr. *j^híj^ha:sati -> *-a:nsati
with analogical nasal. Old Irish future génaid reflects the IE form
directly.

> the *-s (< *-&s) of the gen.sg. doesn't lengthen (pátir dán
> < *potis dems), and neither does the the 2sg. ending.

Right, that is the phonetic part: *-N-s does not cause lengthening
per se. The nominative marker does, but that is not restricted to
nasals.

> The same applies to Balto-Slavic. *-ims and *-ums are
> lengthened, giving Slavic -i and -y (Lith. with secondary
> shortening -ìs and -ùs), so we cannot tell if the long vowel
> in the o-stem ending -y comes from *-oms or *-o:ms.

I suppose the length in inherited in o-stems and analogical in other
stems.

> Same thing in Celtic and Italic. OIr. o-stem acc.pl. -u can
> go back to *-o:ns, but u-stems and i-stems also have a long
> vowel (-u, -i). Latin ditto: -o:s, -u:s, -i:s (Classical
> -e:s is the nominative form < *-ei-es).

The interpretation that -VNs just gives -V:s, which is general
opinion, still seems open to me.

Jens