On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:36:35 +0000, etherman23
<
etherman23@...> wrote:
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:48:47 +0000, etherman23
>> <etherman23@...> wrote:
>>
>> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, glen gordon <glengordon01@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Miguel mentions in previous postings a plural in
>> >> > -abh- and that this lautgesÃĪtzlich becomes -om.
>> >>
>> >> His basis for a true plural marker in *bH is weak.
>> >
>> >I agree
>>
>> What's weak about it?
>
>It's weak because *bhi is obviously a particle that became an
>inflection in some languages.
That isn't obvious at all. It it were a postposition, like
is usually claimed, it would behave like a postposition,
which it doesn't.
A postposition in PIE is added to a case form of a noun, so
we would expect *p&2tros-bhi, not p&2tr.-bhi-os,
*p&2tris-bhi, not p&2tr.-bh-is. It is true that some
postpositions are themselves inflected case forms of nouns
(e.g. *h2ant-i, which is the locative of *h2ant-
"forehead"), but not in this case, because a noun of the
shape *bhi is impossible in PIE.
A postposition can be added freely to the singular or the
plural of a noun. There are no postpositions that attach
only to the plural.
A postposition can be added to nouns no matter what their
declensional class. There are no postpositions that attach
exclusively to athematic nouns.
Obviously, *-bhi- cannot be a postposition.
>It seems more obvious to me that *-e- is
Which *-e-?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...