Re: Finnish KASKA

Miguel, that is not what I was getting at.

Why is it *dwo- rather than *dwé-?

Before endings added.


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] 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@...
>
>