Jens:
> You do know what I mean. We have been over this more than once
> already.
Oh I'm sorry. Yes, I follow now, although I still object a helluvalot.
> From the protoform thus tentatively posited as *H2nér-z-c we expect
> the following developments by the rules already accepted:
>
> 1. Lengthening caused by the nominative sibilant: [...]
> 2. Shortening before -CC-s [...]
> 3. Reduction of sibilant clusters to /s/ would give *H2nérs. Now,
> that is not the form to be explained, *H2néres is. So we need an
> added rule:
Now this is just painful! Honestly. The solution is hitting you right
on the head. The nominative plural was never lengthened to begin with
because its suffix was not affected by Syncope and subsequent
compensatory lengthening (Szemerenyi) like *-sa was. Since *-sa was
shortened to *-s, we see the length in the singular while *-es
remains as is and hence... no lengthening. Very very very simple.
Where you err is that you assume that the nominative plural was
a combination of *-s + *-(e)s, I see. This is why I couldn't follow
what you were saying above. It was too absurd to comtemplate for me.
Someday you'll understand that the nominative was originally unmarked
and that the plural was applied long before the nominative in *-s was
ever established. If anything we should expect the long-established
*-es being given the late suffix *-s instead! At least that idea would
be even remotely more sensible than what you offer above. Still the
simplest approach is to accept that *-sa was only applied to the
singular as a contrast with an animate plural already in *-es.
> The rule by which it is regular is ad hoc, however, but that cannot
> be helped I'm afraid.
It could be, with just a few teaspoons of common sense. Shame :P
= gLeN