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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> 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,

> >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.

Do you mean: The voicing of the number markers *-g and *-d reflect
earlier presence of a following vowel as opposed to none after the
person markers *-k, *-t, *-c?

Jens