Re: Finnish KASKA

Thank you for your thoughts.

I cannot accept **du as a root.

It is not monosyllabic *CV because *u is a vocalic allophone of a consonant:
*w.

It could be the zero-grade of *déw but you are not asserting that, are you?


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA


> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:46:04 -0600, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >Miguel, that is not what I was getting at.
> >
> >Why is it *dwo- rather than *dwé-?
> >
> >Before endings added.
>
>
> Well, without endings added, the form appears to be *dwi-.
>
> The form *dwóh3 can equally be written *dwéh3, as /e/ > /o/
> is automatic before *h3. However, given that the thematic
> vowel is lengthened (i.e. becomes *o) before voiced
> segments, I believe the proper rendition is *dwóh3: *h3 was
> voiced. Before *-ih1-, the thematic vowel must also appear
> as *o, because *i is voiced.
>
> The word declines as a normal o-stem dual:
> NA *d(u)wo-h3 => Skt. d(u)vá:(u), Greek duó:, etc.
> n./f. *d(u)wo-ih1 => Skt. d(u)vé:, Lith dvì, OCS dvê, OE
> twa:
> G *d(u)wo-ih1-h3ous => Skt. d(u)váyo:s
> L *d(u)wo-ih1-h3u(m) => Grk. duoîn
> DIAb *d(u)wo-ih1-bh(i)/m-oh3(m) => Av. dvae:ibya, Lith.
> dviem~
>
>
> On a more speculative note, I reconstruct the dual ending
> for some pre-stage of PIE (as well as Uralic, Eskimo-Aleut
> and others) as *-ik- (construct/pausal *-ik > *-iN,
> nominative *-iku, accusative/genitive *-iki). If the root
> was plain *du- (c.q. *t.u-), that would have given PIE:
> C **du-íN > *dwéj
> N **du-íku > *dwéh3 > *dwóh3
> A **du-íki > +dwéh1
>
> *dwóh3 might then have been reinterpreted as a thematic
> form, yielding neuter (< acc.) *dwoih1 instead of expected
> +dwéh1. The construct form appears as PIE *dwi-, *dwéj-.
>
> Alternatively, the form may have been thematic to begin
> with:
> **du-á-(i)ku > *dwóh3
> **du-a-íki > *dwoíh1 > *dwóih1,
> but that would perhaps have given a construct form
> *du-á-(i)N > +dwór- ~ +dur-, which is AFAIK completely
> unattested.
>
> If we leave the root as *du-, one attractive possibility
> that opens up is explaining *dék^m.t "10" as something like
> **dú-kamt- "two hands".
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...
>
>