Re: Hachmann versus Kossack?

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 57287
Date: 2008-04-14

----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
>> 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.
phonetics alone.
>> 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.
>The voiceless nature of the dental in Oss. -tæ poses
>a problem though.

Not so clear.
The morpheme is a phonetic problem and is frequent in North Iranian,
precisely where Uralic is.
Uralic morpheme -Ht- "plural" clearly has a devoicing feature (clearly
exhibited in Moksha).
You have not proved it's not a LW from Uralic.