Miguel:
> 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).
Funny how I was chastised for my Final Voicing rule in mLIE
when in fact we apparently have such a case here as well if all this
were correct. I'm sure you guys can't have that, so you're going
to have to decide what you want to believe. You can't have it
both ways.
> 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].
Independent developments actually. In Altaic, there was a lenition
of *-t to *-s, an isogloss shared with IndoTyrrhenian during the
breakup of ProtoSteppe at around 8500 BCE. IndoTyrrhenian and Altaic
appear to share many isoglosses in fact, leading me to conclude that
they represent the southmost dialects of the Central Asian steppeland
while Boreal was spread across the north. The pre-Altaic *-s was
subsequently voiced as it came to be in English and a resultant *-z
was then rhotacized. It was sometimes palatalized by a neighbouring
high vowel, thereby explaining the actual plural form *-r^ from *-it.
In IndoTyrrhenian the regular reflex *-es obviously remained unchanged
throughout IE while it was independently rhotacized in Tyrrhenian as
*-er. I've already stated why MIE *-es fails to become expected **-as,
being otherwise identical with the singular thematic nominative, a big
no-no.
Since I've seen Uralic claimed to have a plural in _*t_ in what I've
read, I have to question the correctness of the forms you cite.
Regardless, ample common sense shows that the original plural was *-it
even without Uralic.
= gLeN