Re: Finnish KASKA

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:39:21 -0600, "Patrick Ryan"
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>It is certainly _not_ coincidence that *dwo:(u) is declined as a dual; it
>fit the outward pattern set by genuine duals and was treated as what it was
>perceived (in my opinion, wrongly) to be.
>
>Not really anything surprising in all this except that this is one of the
>few instances, I think, where pre-PIE *dWA from *do brought the glide with
>it into PIE: *dWo:(u).
>
>Piotr, do you have any thoughts on why we have *o here rather than *e?

It's an o-stem dual, the ending is *-o: (< *-oh3) for
masculines, *-oih1 for neuters.

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