Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
>
> > The nom.pl. of *H2ner- 'man' is *H2nér-es. Why is that? Ní

h-ansae.

> > We expect stem + case marker + plural marker, which is certainly
> > what we have in the accusative plural ending in *-m-s. That leads
> to
> > *-s-s. Since I am not sure the two sibilants were identical I

write

> > them with an arbitrary difference, say, *-z-c.
>
> If I may make an observation here...
>
> The thing with *xnérs 'man' vs. *xnéres 'men' is that there's no
> difference in accentuation. I think this must mean that the plural

*-

> es must have been added after the main changes in stress-accent.

No, the vowel could have been triggered after the accent adjustments
were over. I derive both forms from earlier forms without vowels in
their desinential segments. That makes them morphologically regular,
and it makes them both "strong" paradigm forms.

>
> Another thing: according to Greenberg (et al.?), the normal form is
> stem + plural + case. This is the reverse of what we find in PIE,
> where the accusative plural ending is *-m-s -- that is, case +
> plural. Is it possible that it was earlier *-(e)s-m with

metathesis?

Very interesting! For the nominative plural this would not matter at
all of course, it's all about the accusative. It's not a thing I have
observed, but perhaps one should be on the look-out.

>
> > From the protoform thus tentatively posited as *H2nér-z-c we

expect

> > the following developments by the rules already accepted:
>
> [snip]
>
> Let me make sure of something: Szereményi Lengthening is lengthening
> of a (stem-final) (nominal?) vowel before a resonant, correct?
> Excuse my ignorance, but are there any counterexamples to the
> hypothesis that this is not compensatory lengthening due to loss of
> nominative *-s after a resonant?

(You don't mean "not", I take it). We also have lengthening after
stems in stops where the sibilant is retained. I therefore do not find
the assessment compensatory adequate, but that's a minor point.

> It just seems to me that there is a
> pattern: in athematic nouns with stem-final resonants, there is no
> sigmatic nominative (so-called "Nominative Loss") *and* there is
> lengthening of the stem-final vowel. Common sense would say that
> these things are related (somehow).

The nominative marker is lost after lengthened vowel followed by /n,
r, y/, perhaps /m/, probably not /l/, and certainly not /w/. You may
work out your generalization on that.

>
> > This could not be achieved if there was already a vowel before the
> > final consonant of the nominative plural before the ablaut worked.
> > So I say there wasn't, and then the form is regular. The rule by
> > which it is regular is ad hoc, however, but that cannot be helped
> > I'm afraid. Where do I go check what the proper output of stem-
> final
> > consonant + nominative marker + plural marker is?
>
> Perhaps the sigmatic nominative wasn't in the nominative plural?

You mean the form in *-es reflected by the nominative plurals of most
or all IE languages was not the nominative plural? It *is* possible,
but what's the point then?

> > An imprtant point in it all is of course that the nominative

plural

> > is a strong case which never shows a vowel and never attracts the
> > accent. That fact is honoured by the lack vowel in the underlying
> > form I posit.
>
> As I stated above, perhaps the nominative plural suffix *-es was
> added after the accent-attraction processes had stopped.

That would not explain (1) the o-form of the suffix of *H2ák^-mon-es,
(2) the presence of the unstressed short vowel in the *-mon-es, (3)
the shortness of the surviving vowel in *-mon-. This is all explained
by the double sibilant ending. That also gives the nominative plural a
sensible marking, which I miss in your suggestion.

>
> > > Your last question here is moot. The plural came to be *-es in
> > nouns
> > > with singulars and thus spread to all other forms. I'm not
> > convinced
> > > that there wasn't *treis and *kWetwors at some point in the past
> > > either. We see *-s in the accusative plural *-ms anyway.
>
> This should really be in another thread, but it seems to me that the
> *-es's in *treyes and *kWetwores are the nominative plural suffix.
> That means that the earlier numeral forms were **trei and **kWetwor,
> respectively. I also suspect that the *-r or *-or (or maybe even

the

> whole *-wor) in *kWetwor(es) is another suffix.

These numerals are adjectives, so it's no great wonder that they are
inflected in concord with their head nouns.

>
> > The alleged "extension" does not meet any expectations I can see.
> > Rather, a house is a building, and "building" would be one of the
> > meanings expected for a root noun of this type.
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm confused about the root for "to build" vs. the

one

> for "to tame." Which one is *demh2-?

They both are. Benveniste wanted to identify them.

Jens