On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:16:06 +0200, Piotr Gasiorowski
<
gpiotr@...> wrote:
>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.
>
>Any thoughts?
I obviously have no problems with a coronal segment
underlying the *y in pronominal/thematic *-oy(-)/*-ey(-).
That is my analysis as well (although in my version it's an
unvoiced palatalized coronal stop/affricate *-ati > *-ec^ >
*-ey). And both -oDm > -o:m and *-oym > -o:m are equally
acceptable.
Where I disagree is the analysis of the nom.pl. I see
*-oy/*-ey (whatever it's underlying form) as a plural
oblique ending. The corresponding nominative is *-es(W) (<
*-atu). That the nominative has been replaced by the
oblique (accusative) in a number of pronouns (*toy, *wey,
etc.) is unremarkable. The thematic nom.pl. should have
been *-os(W) [from pre-zero grade *ó-esW], a form which is
perhaps still found in Skt. -a:sas, if from *-os-es. The
form *-o::s (with circumflex length) is then analogical,
either from *-oy-sW (*-oD-s), as you suggest, or from *-o- +
athematic *-es, as has been the communis opinio.
For reference, a summary of my views:
The plural and dual endings were once:
dual: *-iku, obl. *-iki
pl. (nominal): *-abhu, obl. *-abhi
pl. (pronominal): *-atu, obl. *-ati.
Depending on the shape and stress-class of the stem, these
should have given:
du.nom. *-ye(:h3) / *-yh3 / *-íh3 them. *-ó-h3
du.acc. *-ye(:h1) / *-yh1 / *-íh1 them. *-o-íh1
pl.nom. [*-om / *-m / *-ém] them. *-ó-sW
pl.acc. *-om / *-m / *-ém them. *-ó-y
With further oblique forms based on du. *-(y)h1- (them.
*-oyh1-), and pl. *-bh(y)- ~ *-m- (them. *-oy-), and
suffixed by the dual/plural articles *-h3, *-sW. The
thematic paradigm was originally:
nom. *-osW(-esW)
acc./gen. *-oy
dat. *-oy-ó-sW > *-oy(bhy)os
loc. *-oy-sW-í > *-oysú
ins. *-oy-é-sW > *-oís > *-ó::ys
dual:
nom. *-oxW
acc./gen. *-oih1
dat. *-oyh1-ó-xW > *-oyy(bhy)ó:
loc. *-oyh1-xW-í > *-oyyú
ins. *-oyh1-é-xW > *-oyy(bhy)ó:
Athematic:
nom. (abs. sg. + *-esW)
acc./gen. *-om / *-m / *-ém
dat. *-bhy-ó-sW
loc. *-bh-sW-í > *-sú
ins. *-bhy-é-sW > *-bhís
dual:
nom./acc./gen. *-ye / *-ih1
dat. *-(y)h1-ó-xW ~> *-bhyó:
loc. *-(y)h1-xW-í ~> *-Hou (?)
ins. *-(y)h1-é-xW ~> *-bhyó:
In the thematic forms, acc/gen. *-oy shifts to the
nominative, while acc.pl. and gen.pl. are distinguished by
importing athematic *-m and *-m-sW, respectively. Another
nom.pl. form is *-o::S, discussed above.
In the athematic paradigm, *-om is generalized in the
gen.pl. (vs. thematic *-oy + *-m), *-m + *-sW in the acc.pl.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...