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: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 4:44 PM

<snip>

>> 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.

> It only makes things worse if you reconstruct _against_ the rules: The
> dual forms mentioned can all derived from *-e, the Greek one alone also
> from *-H1, but then the forms indeed are not commensurable. BTW, I fail to
> see the serious objection (if it is meant to be one): What is complicated
> by deriving /-e/ of one language and /-e/ of another from a common
> protoform *-e ?

But this is not what Beekes is doing. On pp. 194-195 (comp. IE Ling.), he
attempts to ascribe the common basis -*H{1}e to the animate consonant stems.

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

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

 <snip>

> 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.

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

> I fail to see that such a morpheme has left any palpable imprint on IE.
> But show us where!

>> 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
>>   development that is not present even in Iranian.
>>   --rma ]

In every such case, we have the option of identifying an innovation, or, far
less likely but still possible, a retention of an original feature in only
one branch.

> It is present in Goth. ahtau, Skt. aSta:/-au, Av. ashta. It appears to be
> a special Indic _choice_ out of an Indo-Iranian pair of sandhi variants
> which proceed from an IE pair of variants.

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.

<snip>

>> 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.

> Are you talking about a metathesis of quantity, *nowi: > *no:wi? If so,
> what makes you think that was a rule? Or is it an invention - mother
> of comedy, huh - like some of my early stages?

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

> [... On the 1st person dual pronoun:]

>> I [...] would go the further step of suggesting that a 'laryngeal' is not
>> required to be reconstructed at all.

> 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?

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)