alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> 2. but on the other hand:
> a) the supposed phonetic rule: o:u > u: (>y) is not 'well
> reflected' in Albanian (based on this I have doubts also about
> Hamp's derivation of dy...)
> b) even your proposed contraction "e.g. the contraction of *du[w]
> o: > *dúö: > *du: > dy" is a 'local' solution.
It doesn't matter. Since according to Hamp /sy:/ has been modelled on
/dy:/, _whatever_ explains the form of 'two' (and it has to be explained
_somehow_) will work for 'eyes' as well. If you wish to derive /sy:/
from contracted *(a)c^i:-u:, fine, be my guest, but what is the final
*u:? If it's the same as in Hamp's explanation, i.e. a secondary dual
ending derived from the numeral, you need what you call a "local"
solution, as much as Hamp does or I do, to account for it. And once you
accept that, what do you need the *i: for any longer? *(a)c^-u: will do
the job equally well. Now, if you have two competing reconstructions,
both of which yield the same output, the simpler one is to be preferred
under Ockham's razor.
Piotr