Re: [tied] Re: Some thoughts...

On 04-10-01 19:21, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> The advantage of my theory is that it explains all the forms
> (*mes ~ *wey ~ *weh1, *(y)us ~ *swey ~ *(y)uh3) as
> reflecting non-oblique *-atu > *-esW, oblique *-ati > *-ey.
> In the first person, the old oblique forms are favoured
> (*wey, *weh1), in the second person, the old nominatives
> (*(y)us, *yuh3), but *mesW [Armenian mek`, Lith. mes] and
> *swey [Celtic *swi:, Hitt. suwe:s] certainly existed.

I view *(j)us and *t/swei as reflecting the enclitic and orthotonic
variants of something like *D-w-D, with an old epenthetic vowel in the
strong form (*DweD > swei) and dissimilation in the weak form (*DwD >
(j)us). As for the dual, Jens has proposed that word-final *G (= *h3)
lost its colouring properties already in pre-IE times and all that
survives in auslaut is the prop vowel that once developed before it. I
_almost_ agree with that, and certainly forms like *we(:) and *ju(:) can
be explained using that approach.

Piotr