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

On Sri, travanj 5, 2006 5:58 pm, Rob reče:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapović <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
>> > 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...
>
> Alright, I will. In the meantime, however, how much support is there
> for that analysis in the attested descendant languages?

What analysis? One finds *-eh2 in o-stems for the collective and *-V:C
elsewhere in archaisms together with *-eh2 which is, as already said,
secondary.

>> > 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.
>
> What is this "mixing" of which you speak? Languages (better, speakers
> of languages) don't throw things together haphazardly.

Again, check any handbook... "Mixing" is not the right name for it in
English (I cannot remember the exact term right now and I have no
literature handy), but it's a known phenomenon.

Mate