-s. vs. (-)t-

[Glen Gordon]

MIGUEL:
  I note that at least the last two examples seem to show an
  inverted "reading rule".  We have meH1not(s), Gen. meH1n(e)sos;
  and Skt. nom/acc. n. sg. -vat (*-wot), vs. fem. -us.i: (*-wsiH2)
  etc.  In other words, these look like cases of -t word-finally
  and -s- medially.  What to make of them?

JENS:
  You are right, and I have adjusted the "reading rule" in a separate
  mail. [...] Glen Gordon's generalization of -s- to intervocalic
  position (in a separate mail) does not explain its occurrence
  word-finally

Well, it wasn't meant to. That's why I had _two_ rules going on at the
same time, the **-t > *s to account for the final (I've had that one
brewing in my head for some time) and a **-VtV- > *s rule to account
for the medial

...but come to think of it, maybe it's not enough like you say. Maybe
these two rules of mine are one and the same.

Try this instead. As always, **-t > *-s but I'm wrong about the
intervocalic medial **t which may not have changed after all. In fact,
I'm wrong about the pre-history of IE's declension! Instead, the forms
that have an alternative *s alongside *t might very well allude to a
relatively recent (that is, IndoEtruscan) prehistory where the
suffixes were seperate from the stem such as the ablative, genitive,
etc where they were only postpositions like **ta, **se, etc.

Thus, we could explain this *-s- as being reminiscent of a time when
the root was complete as itself and when **t was in final position in
the non-nomino-accusative, later becoming *-s, right on schedule.

To account for the nominative and accusative forms, these case endings
must be viewed as older than the rest of the declension that we now
find in IE. Forms like *nemetos then would not be affected by such a
rule because they are nothing but *nemeto-s with _medial_ *t.
Likewise, forms with *-ter and other medial-*t-suffixes do not
interfere with the rule.

There is one case like *nekwt- that I can think of that apparently
doesn't follow this rule of t/s alternation but then again *nekwt-
ends in a consonant cluster that may have prevented this change from
happening. So...

Revised rule:       Pre-IE **-Vt > IE *Vs
                but Pre-IE **-Ct > IE *Ct

Does that explain everything now? Gettin' out the check list...
2nd person *-s? Check. Relationship of substantive/aorist? Check. The
infamous *t/*s alternation. Check. Examples where final **t doesn't
become *s? Maybe.

Jens? Miguel? What do you say?

--------------------------------------------
Glen Gordon
glengordon01 at hotmail.com
Kisses and Hugs
--------------------------------------------