Re: [tied] Tyrhennian affiliation

Me:

> We can agree that the alternation can only derive from one and the
> same phoneme.

Miguel:

> 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.

When both 'five' and the inanimate plural show the same alternation
of /cH/ and /v/, it's time to face the facts that we have a widespread
phonological pattern that can't be explained by morphology.

> Animates and inanimates alike take the plural ending -(i)s'-v(a)-.

If /-va/ is expected after sibilants elsewhere then this ending follows
the expected pattern nonetheless. Personally I doubt that pronominals
in the third person originally had plural markers. I have a hunch that
this is a relatively late innovation. What examples show this ending
again?


= gLeN