Re: [tied] Re: Some questions

OK, I got more of a response than I bargained for. I must admit here that I haven't paid as close attention to many of the discussions on cybalist as have the heavyweights like you. Your discussion of Pre-PIE is far beyond my ken, and I can only accept what you say at this point, without delving into the reams of Nostratic and other PIE research, which I will have to do to stay current with the level of discussion in this group. I tend to rely too heavily on all the old "classical" descriptions of IE, being nothing but an amateur. But I will try to listen to more of the discussions on the highly speculative Nostratic and other Pre-PIE theories. Nevertheless, thanks for the explanation.

Andrew

Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:54:07 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote: >>Miguel has explained it as a mere merger of former abl. >**-abhí-âtu and dat. **-abhi-á-atu. > >What are you talking about here, pray tell? What are -a:tu and -atu? >They are not Proto-IE, are they Hittite? Are they plural >(if so what of *-bh(y)os/*-mos?)? They are pre-PIE. A brief explanation. My theory is that Proto-Nostratic had the plural markers -at- (pronominal, perhaps adjectival) and -ab- (nominal). The dual suffix was -ik-. These could occur with zero case marking (in which case they become -an, -am(?) and -ing) or with nominative -u, oblique -i, resulting in: pron. nom. du. -an -am -iN nom. -atu -abu -iku obl. -ati -abi -iki In pre-PIE, the first form was limited to verbal endings (e.g. 1pl. -mén), so needn't concern us here. The pronominal endings ca be seen in the personal pronouns: 1pl. *mu-átu > *mWésW > *mésW *mu-áti > *mWéy > *wéy(-esW) 2pl. *tu-átu > *(s)wésW > *(y)úsW *tu-áti > *sWéy(-esW) In the thematic nouns, the thematic vowel preceeds these endings: *-a-atu > *-o:sW(-esW), oblique *-a-ati > *-oy. From the oblique are formed the acc.pl. *-oy-m-s > *-o:ns, gen.pl. *-oy-m > *-õm, dat.pl. *-oy-o-sW (abl.pl. *-oy-ot-sW > *-oyos), loc.pl. *-oy-sW-i > *-oysu, ins.pl. *-oy-it-sW > *-oys. The nominal nominative plural *-abhu would have merged with the oblique, and was replaced by an absolute form followed by the plural article (*h1ésW). The oblique, however, remained in use as an accusative/genitive plural, with stress-conditioned variants *-ém, *'-om, *-m (the accusative plural was later distinguished by adding a reduced form of the plural article *-m-sW > *-ns). The other plural forms were built on the plural oblique *-abhi (after zero grade *-bh(y)/*-m [the alternation *-bhy- ~ *-bh- ~ *-m- indicates that the additional endings were added at a time when final palatalized *-bhy was in the process of becoming unpalatalized *-m]), with addition of the plural article: Dat. *-abhi-á-atu > *-bhyá:sW > *-bhyós Ins. *-abhi-át-atu > *-bhyéts > *-bhí(:)s Abl. *-abhí-ât-atu > *-bhía:ts > *-bhyós The loc.pl. (*-abhí-a-atu) should also have given *-bhyós, but instead we have *-0-sW-í > *-sú. The case endings are the same as in the singular, i.e. Dat *-á, Loc *'-a; Ins *-át, Abl. *'-a(:)t. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@...