Re: [tied] Tyrhennian affiliation

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:44:21 -0700 (PDT),
enlil@... wrote:

>Me:
>>It becomes /cH/ when preceded by consonant but /v/ when intervocalic.
>
>Miguel:
>> After -s', the collective/plural appears as -v- in the paradigm:
>
>Yes, alright. That's a moot point. The point remains that it all
>derives from *x, and *x becomes /cH(v)/ in some situations and /v/ in
>others such as the clear alternation seen in /macH/ vs. /muvalcH/.
>This now explains the alternation properly nonetheless. We can agree
>that the alternation can only derive from one and the same phoneme.

I really couldn't say. Adiego mentions some theories
(pronominal -ca-va or just -va?, suffixed heva "all?"), but
it's impossible to tell if we're dealing with two slightly
different suffixes -c(h)va and -va, or with different
phonological developments of the same suffix in different
contexts.

One important observation Adiego makes is that the -(c(h))va
suffix in the "definite" (i.e. pronominal) forms does not
follow the rule we see elsewhere, namely inanimate -(c(h))va
vs. animate -r(a). Animates and inanimates alike take the
plural ending -(i)s'-v(a)-.


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