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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> On 2006-04-26 15:11, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Nom. *h1den-s > *eden-s
> > Obl. *h1dont- > *edont-
>
> I don't understand where the oblique form comes from.
>
> >
> > Nom. *edon-s
> > Obl. *edont-
> >
> > which is hypercorrected back by some to
> >
> > Nom. *eden-s
> > Obl. *edent-
> >
> > and "hyper-regularised" back again (by the first party?) as
> >
> > Nom. *odon-s
> > Acc. *odont-
>
> In what way is this superior to reconstructing the pres.p. *h1éd-

ont-,

> substantivised (with contrastive accent) as *h1d-ónt-s (gen.

*h1dn.t-ós,

> which accounts for the vocalism of Lat. dent- without introducing

an

> otherwise unattested e-grade)? The regularly expected Gk. outcome

would

> of course have been <edous> (and cf. Aeol. edontes 'teeth'), but

the

> assimilatory colouring of *&1 or *e by the vowel of the next

syllable is

> not unknown in Greek.
>

Right. I wasn't aware that Latin dens was zero-grade. Other than
that, my explanation doesn't appeal to a sporadic ('not
unknown') 'assimilatory coloring'.


Torsten