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

On Uto, travanj 4, 2006 5:31 pm, Rob reče:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapović <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
> Alright, where do you see these archaisms?

Well, vaca:(m.)s(i) for starters... There's more of course but I don't
have the literature handy right now and I am not sure I can recollect all
the instances by heart correctly. All the collectives with *-V:C should
belong here though, for instance *wedo:r > Hitt. wida:r etc. The easiest
way to explain *wedo:r is via earlier *wedorh2.

>> >> 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.
>
> That's not what I was asking, but thanks. Perhaps what I should
> really ask is how the /s/ came between the /n/ and the /i/.

Well, it's the old *-s from *wekWo:s. It's a synchronic rule in Sanskrit
that these forms have to have a long vowel (here -a:-), a nasal (-m.- here
or -n- in yuga:ni) and a final -i, if my memory serves me right. There's a
nice little footnote about it in Sihler for instance.

Mate