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

On Sri, travanj 5, 2006 5:05 pm, Rob reče:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapović <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>>
>> > Such forms could also easily be from earlier e.g. *wédors, cf.
>> > *kwóns > *kwó:n. The point is, I don't see how we have all of the
>> > facts just yet.
>>
>> Now, why would a collective have an *-s as an ending? Come on...
>
> Then again, who's to say that they're necessarily collectives?

Sure, they could also be instrumentals, verbs, prepositions, anything...
They *are* collectives (or neuter plurals). That's not my opinion. That's
a fact. Look it up in any handbook...

>> > IIRC, Sihler also mentions that such Sanskrit forms are rather
>> > enigmatic and difficult to reconstruct for IE, which is my point.
>> > Furthermore, how does the *s come to intrude between the *n and
>> > the *i? That's what I'm asking here.
>>
>> It's a mix of the old *vaca:s and the younger ending -a:ni (instead
>> of -a:, where -ni is itself a younger ending based on the new
>> *-nh2). The -a:- is already there, but it's hard to reconcile the
>> -ni with the original *vaca:s (**vaca:sni would hardly work). Thus
>> the -s- stays, the -n- appears as the anusva:ra after the -a:- and
>> the -i is at the end. Phonologically, vaca:m.si is really vaca:nsi
>> which and this -a:nsi is a mix of old -a:s and newer ending -(a:)ni.
>
> You did not explain to me *how* the presumably inherited *s split the
> apparent *-ni ending in two. How do you think it happened (assuming
> for the moment, that it did)? Metathesis? Analogy? What?

Analogy & mixing of the two endings.

Mate