IE pers.pron. (dual forms)

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Jens and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer at cphling.dk>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 5:27 PM

> I wasn't targeting, but I do think the ending was *-e, not *-H1e. However,
> proving lack of /H1/, the least stable of the laryngeals, is not easy,
> and the rules may still hold surprises. Barring that, if the Skt. dual
> sva'sa:rau 'two sister' is to continue an IE *swe'-sor-e (with -au for
> expected *-a on the analogy of thematic stems), the *-o- must be in an
> open syllable since it has come out long. Then -i: and -u: of i/u-stems
> are analogical on the form -a: of the a-stems.

Of all the arguments employed to explain divergent forms, analogy is surely
the weakest because it implies a *mistake* on  the part of native speakers
of the language. Were Sanskrit speakers all **childs**?

Now, I have two questions:

1) If no IE syllable may begin with a vowel in a root, and affixes derive
from grammaticalized morphemes, why should we expect any affix to originally
be simply -V?

2) If view of what you have written below about length and its connection
with open syllables, would you mind explaining why an open syllable seems
sufficient grounds to you above to explain the length of Sanskrit <a:>?

I expect that the better explanation is that a termination of *-yeu has
become *-e:u (compensatory lengthening), and that the length has been
metathesized to the foregoing syllable.

>> He then proceeds to identify an inanimate (neuter) -*iH{1}.

> He is right in that.

Well, then it is incumbent upon you to provide the definitive argument for
the existence of the "pure vowel" [i], which has eluded every IEist who has
put his pen to it.

>> I would maintain that the great majority of the (animate and inanimate)
>> forms can be more simply from *-y.

> Not the ones we find, if they are to be treated by the phonetic rules we
> normally accept.

Well, generalizations are less than illuminating. Why not give a few
examples if you believe this?

>>> It even looks as if Beekes considers the IE languages more closely
>>> related to each other than to Egyptian.

>> Ha! But, of course, so do I.

> Oh yeah? You have been known to act as if you didn't; as in:

> [... (On the dual form of IE '8'):]

>> Based on the Egyptian evidence, I prefer to see the -*(u) of *okto:(u) as a
>> numeral-siffix rather than a dual. I am aware of several attempts to
>> identify a 'four' root that might have served as a basis for a dual meaning
>> 'eight' though, IMHO, they have not been successful.

I do not see that as an example of "believing" that IE languages are less
closely related to each other than to Egyptian, which I find utterly
ridiculous.

> [... (Vocalism of 'we two'):]

>> Well, I thought it was generally accepted that stress-accent in an open
>> syllable could be lengthen, and that stress-unaccented syllables are
>> shortened. Have I just invented that?

> I think you have.

See above.


>>> Then what would be the enclitic form meaning "us two" in IE? */no:/
>>> ending in a long vowel?

>> I am going to pass the wand. What do you think it is?

> I'm not that much of an oracle, but my guess is *noH3 which stands to the
> accented form *nH3we' as does *nos to *nsme', and in parallel fashion
> *woH3 for 'you two' : accented form *uH3we' (apparently dissimilated to
> *uH3e') which would match the 2pl *wos : *usme' - provided /m/ develops
> into /w/ in the position after the dual marker /H3/.

This is the least logical proposition that I have seen you advance. So
enclitic *noH{3} just conveniently drops a *-we{'}? and *nos just drops an
inconvenient *-me? and a stress-unaccented enclitic *woH{3} modifies its <w>
to /u/ in *uH{3}we{'}? {3}.

I think you are engaging in free association.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)