Re: PIE i- and u-stems again

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
wrote:

>
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 23:05:26 -0800 (PST), Sean Whalen
> <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> >--- Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Apart from a relatively small number of i- and
> >> u-stems with
> >> a divergent paradigm (genitive sg. in -jés/-jós,
> >> -wés/-wós),
> >> some of which may be old n-stems (e.g. the u-stem
> >> neuters
> >> *doru(r), *g^onu(r), *pok^u(r) ~ *pek^u(r),
> >> *medhu(r) ,
> >> etc.,
> >
> > If these are given (r) because of the Armenian forms
> >I'd disagree. Final *-s just goes through changes due
> >to retroflex (after K/r/u/s):
> >us
> >us.
> >uz.
> >ur.
> >ur
> >r
> >
> > There is simply analogy at some time changing the
> >neuter to the same as the non;
>
> No. Analogy means that a feature of A is transferred to B,
> where B originally didn't have the feature. Since the
> masculine u-stems never have -r in Armenian, this is not
> where the neuters got it from.
>
> An analysis of the attested forms in Sanskrit, Greek,
> Armenian of these u-stem neuters reveals that they are in
> origin neuter n-stems (i.e. r/n-heteroclitics) composed with
> a suffix *-un- (final *-un > *-ur, unstressed *-un- = *-un-,
> stressed *-ún- > *-éu-). For instance:

Stressed *-ún- > *-óu- is more phonetically believeable and matches
your date too.

> NA *g^á:n-un > *g^ónur
> G *g^a:n-ún-a:s > *g^en&wós > *g^énwos
> or, with early stress-shift:
> G > *g^enw&nós > *g^énunos
> L *g^a:n-ún-a > *g^enéw-i > *g^énui
> I *g^a:n-un-éh1 > *g^enunéh1 > *g^énuneh1
> du.
> NA *g^á:n-un-ih1 > *g^ónunih1 (cf. Skt. januni:, Toch.B
> keni:ne)

Is this *-ur/*-un heteroclitic matched with similar *-ir/*-in and
*-ar/*-an heteroclitics?
If so, is the *-r/*-n part detachable from the stem in *-u, *-i and *-a?

How would you account for Latin pecus, pecoris and pecus, pecudis? If
your *-ur/*-un stem is like the usual heteroclitics, its consonant
would alternate with more than r/n (I've been wondering that if the
ppp -t- is a generalization from some other dental, the present act.
part. *-nt- might be similarly generalized from *-nd-; in that case
one could try to get the set of variants from a prenasalized,
palatalized -d- (cf. Latin id, and in as in Umbrian kenstom-en "in
censum").

> > I searched the archives and found this earlier
> >discussion. Do you still believe this? Is there any
> >need to attribute the Armenian forms to an otherwise
> >unseen peculiarity of PIE?
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer
> ><mcv@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Olsen has shown that *-is and *-us
> >> in final position (when there was no early loss of
> >> the vowel) give -r (presumably -(i/u)s^ > -z^ > -r).
>
> Of course. This applies only in monosyllables:
> *tris > erir "twice",
> *dWis > erkir "thrice",

Is this right?


Torsten