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

On Pon, travanj 3, 2006 8:46 pm, Rob reče:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapović <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.

Well, the pattern like *nebHos ~ *nebHo:s looks irregular. Thus, it is not
at all strange that we find the secondary *nebHeseh2 etc. everywhere.
However, archaisms also exist which point to the older forms.

>> > 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?

It's just a phonetic realization of -n- in that context, i.e. -a:nsi >
-a:m.si.

Mate