From: Mate Kapović
Message: 44455
Date: 2006-05-02
> At 7:02:31 PM on Sunday, April 30, 2006, Andrew JarretteWell, there's a same thing in Sanskrit (-a:sas for -a:s), but I think it
> wrote:
>
>> Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
>>> The result of devoicing in the case of *D is *T, not *t,
>>> which indicates a fricative pronunciation at least for
>>> this particular point of articulation, e.g. *bHéronti >
>>> *beranDi (cf. Goth. bairand) > *beranD > *beranT >
>>> *bera~:T > OE beraT (likewise, *-z > *-s before
>>> rhotacism).
>
>> Is this the explanation for why OE has -as as the
>> nom./acc. plural of masculine a-stem (IE o-stem) nouns? I
>> have never understood why OE (and OS) preserves final *-s
>> in these forms. Or are you referring only to *-z < IE
>> *-esi in thematic verbs, which > -s (Anglian)?
>
> Here's a bit from a post that I saved almost three years
> ago; it's Piotr responding to Miguel.
>
> > pl.
>
> > The nominative in *-oi is unattested in Germanic. PIE
> > *-o:s would have given PGmc. *-o:z, which explains Goth
> > -o:s and ON -ar, but not OE -as, OS -os. The
> > reconstruction is thus:
>
> > PIE *-ó:ses *-o:siz
> > *'-o:ses *-o:ziz
>
> > which explains all the forms (Goth. -o:ss > -o:s, ON
> > *-o:ziz > -arr > -ar, OE/OS *-o:siz > *-as). OHG -a is the
> > acc. form.
>
> The OE and OSax. forms are certainly strange and seem to
> require some kind of "extension" to prevent the *s from
> word-final voicing (already in PGmc.!). *-iz would do the
> trick, but I suspect the whole affair is internal to
> Germanic and there's no need to drag in anything as risky as
> "PIE" *-o:ses. I'd sooner consider a more conservative
> solution: *-o-es > *-o:s ~ *-o:s-es > *-o:z ~ *-o:siz with a
> doubly marked variant of the plural that arose within
> Germanic.