IE pers.pron. (dual forms)

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Jebs and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer at cphling.dk>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 6:11 PM

> On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:

> > [On my IE rec. of pers.pron. - mainly after Cowgill in
> > >Evid.f.Laryng., viz.:]

> > >*we:   *yu:  (nom.)
> > >*nH3we *uH3we  (acc.)

> > Why *H3 in the dual forms?  Couldn't it be *H1(w) with o-Stufe?
> > In principle, I'd go along with Beekes in reconstructing *-H1 for
> > the dual of nouns (in view of Greek consonant stem -e < *-H1, and
> > lengthened vowel elsewhere).

I, also, would question the need for a reconstruction of H{3} in the dual.

> The Gk. /-e/ cannot be a syllabic *-H1 if it is to match OLith. augus-e
> 'the two grown ones' or OIr. di: pherid 'two heels', only IE *-e will do
> here.

The main problem, however, is one that I think we run into far more often
than we generally recognize, and that is that some linguists *contrive* very
complicated rules to be able to ascribe a common origin to forms that are
simply not commensurable.

Beekes, I feel, does just this when he attempts to link the Sanskrit
masculine and feminine dual forms (-a:[u], -u:, -a:[u], -e) with those of
other IE languages like Greek: -e, -ei, -o:, [-a:]).

It is as if Beekes had never heard the word "Nostratic"! Egyptian, for
example, has a simple mechanism for forming masculine duals: -wj, with a
plural in -w. Also, nearly every cardinal number has a -w suffix; and AA
plurals (collectives in origin) in -u{:} are well-known.

I interpret these facts (and others) to indicate that Nostratic had a
collective suffix -w(V), and that these suffix was one of those employed to
form a dual in IE.

I would analyze Sanskrit -a:(u) as (C)wa in opposition to Beekes' -H{1}e.

[ Moderator's comment:
  The final -u in the Sanskrit dual is not Indo-European, but an Indic develop-
  ment that is not present even in Iranian.
  --rma ]

But, another method of indicating the dual was almost certainly the
suffix -y, here, not an adjective formant but just a suufix of
differentiation. This will be the source of those dual endings like
Greek -e, and Beekes recognizes the phonological process when he suggests on
p. 195, that "Gr. o{'}sse, 'eyes' comes from *ok{w}-ye" but then goes on to
derive *ok{w}-ye, IMHO incorrectly, from earlier *ok{w}-iH{1}, in a
misguided attempt to unify -e and -a:(u).

Of course, there are sporadic forms like Greek no{'}: from *no:wi, combining
*ne/o + *wi:, 'two', and a 'laryngeal' is not necessary to explain the <o:>
in a stress-accented open syllable; a mechanism as simple as transference of
length back to the stress-accented syllable from *-wi: could explain it.

>However, as the vowel must be a secondary prop-vowel since it
> has not caused accent/ablaut to move, this is neutral as to whether the
> consonant ultimately at work was *-H3 or *-H1. Certainly *-H2 is excluded
> since its well-known effect of lengthening is not caused in the nom.-acc.
> dual. If there is a long vowel in the 1st dual ending of thematic verbs,
> Skt. -a:vas, Goth. -o:s, then it cannot be *-oH1-wos if the choice of -e-
> and -o- as the form of the "thematic vowel" depends on the voicing of the
> following segment, and of course the Goth. form cannot come from *-eH1wos,
> so only *-oH3wos would then do. But can we really exclude *-o-wos with no
> laryngeal? That depends on the rules of Germanic. If Gk. no:^e is
> identical with Avest. /a:va/ (Skt. a:va:m with added -am), then the etymon
> can only be *nH3we - but the Gk. omega could have been taken from the
> enclitic which would be *noH with any laryngeal. Even so there is nothing
> that directly points to -H1- as the dual marker - unless somebody can
> dissect the neuter dual in *-yH1 so as to make /H1/ a common dual marker;
> what would be the morphological principle of that?
> [...]

Yes, I generally agree. But would go the further step of suggesting that a
'laryngeal' is not required to be reconstructed at all.

> You say you miss a reference to the (morpho)phoneme /c/ in my assumption
> of a development of *tw- via *Dw- to *y-/*w- in 'you'. It IS that element
> I have in mind, only the two problems do not overlap so that I can decide
> if the stage /c/ has bee reached by the time relevant here.
> [...]

As an aside, I am correct in presuming that <c> indicates /ts/ and <D> /dz/?

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)