Re: Final voicing (3)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "afyangh" <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>
> > > > > *-(o)-mV(s)-(dG)-ai
> > > > > *-(o)-dGw-oi
> > > > I don't understand what these forms stand for
> > > > especially -dGw- ??
> > >
> > > The idea is that, in some languages at least, dG > dH
> >
> > It does, but as seen in *dGaxY+ / *dGay+ 'divide' not in those which
> > would allow the above derivation to work.
> ======
> Arnaud
> I suppose "some languages" allowing dG > dH amounts to only sanscrit !?

No, it doesn't happen in Sanskrit. That's why I said *-dGwoi > Skt
-dhve wouldn't work.

The ability of the middle/passive participle to replace the 2nd
plural (like Latin -mini:) makes a derivation along the lines of the
rest of the paradigm unnecessary and unlikely to begin with.