Re: [tied] Re: Fun with prenasalized stops.txt

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 22:31:54 -0000, "tgpedersen"
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:24:23 -0000, "tgpedersen"
>> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>>
>> >> This Old Irish nasalization takes place after former previous
>> >> nasal, and its surprising it should happen here. The only ending
>> >> that looks promising for postulating an ending in a nasal is
>> >> *-au/*-a:, which would then be *-onW/-o:, and perhaps *-inW/*-unW
>> >> for the -i and -u-stem's *-i: and *-u:. Why it is limited to the
>> >> neuter in Old Irish, I don't know.
>>
>> The neuter NA dual always merged with the NA singular in Old
>> Irish, in all declensions (o-, i-, u- and C-stems).
>
>According to Thurneysson, the OI neuter NA dual nasalizes, which sets
>it apart from the NA singular, which doesn't, so that can't be true.
>Either Thurneysson or you is right.

I speak for Thurneysen.

Thurneysen 285 [o-stem singualr] (p. 180):
"Nom. voc. acc. neut., with neutral final, nasalizing"
ibid. 287 [o-stem dual] (p. 182):
"Nom. acc. Neutral final, leniting when masculine"
"The neuter has the same form, but causes nasalization".

The rest of the paragraph explains the course of events: the
original o-stem n. NA dual *-oih1 should have given OIr.
palatalization and no nasalization (as does indeed the
a:-stem NA dual of identical shape). But in Celtic, as in
Latin and Greek, the neuter adopted the ending of the
masculine (*-oh3), which in OIr. should have resulted in -o

> -0, thus merging with the NA singular, except for the

nasalization, which the NA dual then took over, as a means
to distinguish (again) the NA dual neuter from the
masculine.

>> The nasalization in the NA n. dual of vowel stems is
>> unetymological (and so is the nasalisation in the NAsg. n.
>> of i- and u-stems).
>
>If you were right, that would be true. If received linguistic wisdom
>says it is so, it is because they didn't know that *-w could actually
>be *-nW, which you were the first to point out.
>
>
>> >> The Dsg of "two" is Skt. dvabhyam.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I forgot: In Old Irish the numerals 7, 8, 9 and 10 all nasalize the
>> >following initial. PIE 7, 9 and 10 end in nasal, but 8 is a dual.
>>
>> Cf. Greek combining okta- "8-", based on hepta- "7-", Slavic
>> osmI "8" based on sedmI "7", Lith. septynì, as^tuonì, devynì
>> "7, 8, 9",
>
>How do you explain -y- in 7 and 9, and -uo- in 8?
>
>> and the I-I ordinals saptamá-, as'tamá-, navamá-,
>> das'amá-.
>
>*ok^tnW.- -> Gk okta-, Slavic osm(I)

These are from analogical *ok^tm., after *septm., with loss
of the original ending *-oh3(w).

>*ok^tonW -> *as^to:n-

-on(W)- does not give a long vowel in Lithuanian. <as^tuonì>
is from *ok^to: plus -n- as in 7 and 9.

>*ok^tonW-ó- -> Skt. as´tamá-

-on(W)o- _does_ give a long vowel in Sanskrit. <as'tamá-> is
from *ok^tm.(m)ó-, analogical after *septm.(m)ó-.

>and
>*ok^tmW-ó- -> Latin octáv-us
>How do you explain the -v-?

*ok^toh3w-ós > *okto:wos, and then apparently o:w > a:w in
Latin.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...