[tied] Re: Some thoughts...

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> On 04-09-28 14:10, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Since I wanted the thematic stems to be a generalisation of the
> > cases with stressed /o/ of the athematic stems (gen.sg. -ós,
> > gen.pl. -óm), therefore of the form -ó-[athematic case suffix]
> > everywhere, I wasn't too happy with this solution. Until I
> > remembered Latin *-os-om; in other words, we would have at some

time

> > the two forms *-oy-m and *-os-om. Is this the athematic gen.pl.
> > suffix glued on to a nom.pl. ('pronominal') and some late stage

of

> > an acc.pl.?
>
> I wonder if we really should posit *-oj-m to account for thematic
> *-o:N(s). If, as is the case with the dual, the plural marker

originally

> preceded case endings (before the agglutination of *-s accross the
> board), let's imagine that the thematic plural looked like this (D
> stands for some kind of voiced coronal continuant):
>
> Nom.pl. -o-D-z
> Acc.pl. -o-D-m
>
> Then, -oD > -oi, -oDm > -o:m (final lenition, compensatory

lengthening)

>
> The first change accounts also for *to-D > *toi, *(m)weD > *wei-

(1sg.).

>
> In the nom.pl., *-oDz > *-o:D at a later date, when word-final *D

was no

> longer lenited but instead changed into whatever underlies PIE

*s/*t, so

> *-o:D > *-o:c > *-o:s . Note the brand-new analysis of *-o:s, which

is

> specifically NOT *-o-es. In case anyone wonders, I have a parallel
> scenario ready for athematic plurals and for duals.
>

I see you have found a happy compromise between vowel length
and /t/ ;-). I assume you mean something like /ð/? Would you ascribe
some semantic significance to the -ð suffix at that stage?
Personally, I'd rather believe a -ð > -þ > -s.


Torsten