On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 05:59:50 +0000, Rob
<
magwich78@...> wrote:
>Well, let's take a look at this. Two possibilities show themselves
>immediately:
>
>1. The Eskimo-Aleut plural marker *-d is not related to IE *-es, or
>2. The final **-t of the IE plural marker and that of the 2sg marker
>were once different (perhaps one was aspirated and the other plain,
>etc).
The EA 1st and 2nd p. sg. markers, as well as the reflexive,
are voiceless 1. *-k > -ng, 2. *-t > -n, 3R. *-c > -ñ, while
other suffixes, such as the dual and plural are voiced (du.
*-g > -k, pl. *-d > -t). The voicing of the dual and plural
markers is shared by EA, Uralic and Altaic [e.g. pl. nom.
*-atu > *-(a)d > Ural-Esk *-d (> Ural -t, Esk. -t), Alt.
*-r; pl. obl. *-ati > *-(a)d^ > EA -t(?), Ural *-j, Alt
*-r2]. I see no reason elsewhere to separate the consonant
of the 2sg. from that of the plural (both PN *t). The lack
of voicing in the 1/2 sg. and refl. forms in EA must then be
the result of early loss of the final vowel.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...