Re: [tied] Re: PIE Word Formation Q&A (1)

On Pon, travanj 3, 2006 6:05 pm, Rob reče:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapović <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
>> > As to the nature of *-ex (Piotr's *-ah2), I think the jury's still
> > > out on whether the vowel is indeed the "thematic vowel". It seems
>> > possible, at least, that this suffix is in fact unitary to begin
> > > with.
>>
>> How so? It seems quite clear that it is *-e-h2. Cf. collectives like
>> *wekWo:s which could be analyzed as *wekWosh2 > *wekWo:s for
>> instance (and there is secondary Sanskrit vaca:m.si with a final -i
>> which is probably this *-h2 analogically reintroduced again). And it
>> does appear in the o/e-changing paradigm. It would not be a small
> > coincidence that in *Hyug-o-m, *Hyug-e-h2, one would have
> > *Hyug-o-/Hyug-e- in the singular, but just *Hyug- in the
> > plural/collective with a suffix *-eh2 which "just
> accidentally" > beginns with an *-e-.
>
> With all due respect, I'm not sure just how confidently forms like
> *wekWo:s < *wekWosx can be reconstructed. From what I understand,
> almost every IE language had s-stem plural forms in *-es-ex.

Which is obviuosly secondary and easily explained as such.

> Furthermore, while "syllabic" *x (= *h2) does become *i in
> Indo-Iranian, it is currently difficult to trace the origin of forms
> like _vaca:m.si_, so it's doubtful that we know all the facts here.

Cf. -a:ni in yuga:ni. The -i is the same and the anusva:ra is the -n- from
this -ni. Thus vaca:(m.)s(i).

> As for the "o/e-changing paradigm", I do not see how the alleged *o
> and *e are necessarily related. What I currently see is the
> reanalysis of the original suffix *-ós from being the (animate)
> genitive singular ending to consisting of the nominative singular
> ending plus a stem-formant *-ó. Along with that, it seems that the
> inherited collective ending *-ex was used for the neuter plural, but
> only in the nom./acc. (otherwise, the endings are the same as for the
> masculines). Some of these collective forms were then treated as
> singulars, which helped give rise to the traditional feminine declension.

I'm not sure I understand your theory. But it's not very likely that the
*-e- in *-eh2 is not the thematic vowel, in my opinion. That's a wrong way
to start a pre-IE venturing...

Mate