[tied] Re: PIE genitive plural *-o:m, a possible analysis

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

>
> I fail to see how singularity correlates to nomen actionis and
> plurality correlates to nomen agentis.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
> Well, then, let me recategorize as punctual vs. durative. Can you
> recognize that difference between the two forms?
> ***

No, I cannot. From what I understand, *bhorós is more original,
with *bhóros being a later development (possibly a back-formation).
Thus, the two do not seem to have been coined at the same time.

> Yet that is not what we see, is it? Do we not see sg. *wé:kWs vs.
> pl. *wékWes? To my knowledge, the nominative plural ending is
> never accented.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
> Of course, *wé:kWs is _not_ what we see if Pokorny is to be
> reliable. It is rather *wékWos (note: short *e!).
> Do you know of a language displaying such a singular?
> ***

As Piotr graciously pointed out, the correct forms are
*wó:kWs/*wókWes; *wékWos is an s-stem. I was mistaken here.
Regarding the differing vowel quality, my tentative thoughts are
that the coda labiovelar may have caused rounding in the nominative
singular form, with later spreading throughout the paradigm.

- Rob