Re: PIE Word Formation Q&A (1)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapoviæ <mkapovic@...> wrote:

> > 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.

How is it *obviously* secondary? I'd like to hear your rationale, please.

> > 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).

Where does the -n-/anusva:ra come from, though?

> > 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...

Well, what part(s) of my theory don't you understand? I'd be happy to
try to explain myself better, if you would like me to.

Thanks,
Rob