Re: Hachmann versus Kossack?

From: david_russell_watson
Message: 57259
Date: 2008-04-13

--- In, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
> What is the origin of -tt- plural in Ossetic ?

When the stem ends in 'l', 'r', 'm', 'n', 'w', or 'j' the plural
marker 't' is geminated.

> Looks so Uralic.

It isn't. I quote from Johnny Cheung's 'Studies in the Historical
Development of the Ossetic Vocalism':

"The suffix -tæ is the common plural ending. Plural suff. -tæ
is clearly connected with Sogd. (Bud.) -t', -th, -t, (Man.) -t'
(after n), Chr. -t', (obl.) -ty, Khz. -c, Yagn. -t, (obl.) -ti,
W. ºt (in the pl. suff. -i:s^t). It is also frequently found
in North Iranian (i.e. Scythian, Sarmatian, vel sim.) tribal
names mentioned in classical sources: Massage-tai, Sauroma-tai,
Thussage-tai, Auxa-tai, Zaka-tai, etc. These plural markers
are originally collective in meaning. The collective (and
abstract) menaing is still preserved in the Avestan and Sanskrit
correspondences -ta:t and -ta:, -ta:t: e.g. G.Av. karapo:.tås-
(ca:) 'the karpan-hood', k&uui:ta:t- 'the kavi-hood', L.Av.
dae:uuo:.ta:t- 'the daeva-hood', Skt. -ta:, e.g. deva-ta:-
'divinity' (deva- 'god'), nagna-ta:- 'nakedness' (nagna- 'naked'),
The voiceless nature of the dental in Oss. -tæ poses
a problem though. There are two explanations possible. Firstly,
it is suggested that -tæ actually continues *-0a:, instead of the
commonly held *-ta:. Another explanation is that this "suffix"
occupies a semi-independent position, i.e. behaving like an
enclitic, as put forward by Bailey (Asica: 25) and accepted by
Thordarson (CLI: 469): possible allomorphs with voiced dental
have been eliminated in favours of the more prevalent -tæ.

The first possibility is supported by -a0 in Yazghulami
and -(i:)ha: in Persian. The Persian pl. suffix is apparently
derived from *-(iia)0ua-a:da (Osnovy II: 61). The Yazghulami
plural suffix appears to be a compromise form of *-0wa and
*-ta: (Osnovy IV: 382). However, a serious objection to the
reconstruction *-0a: is that the Ossetic form would be rather
isolated within the East Iranian language group.

The second explanation is more likely. In Avestan, the
suffix -ta:t sometimes stands independently, cf. Y 62.6 Dsg.
yauuae:ca ta:ite 'and for eternity' (normally yauuae:ta:t-),
Y 32.15 u:0o:ta:s 'fatness'. The special treatment of initial
t- in this suffix is not uncommon in other East Iranian languages
either: Khot. ttus´s´a:-tta:tä, Ps. t&s^tya: 'emptiness'
(< *tussia-ta:ti), cf. Morgenstierne (1942: 93)."

- end quote -