IE pers.pron. (dual forms)

[Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen]

On Fri, 21 May 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

[Jens:]

>> So, for the dual *-e, it _would_ be a problem for you if it did not have
>> a laryngeal, as sva'sa:rau indicates it did not.

> Pat responds:

> Beekes looks at the same data, and on pg. 194, reconstructs -*He. Why is he
> wrong?

It is not _very_ wrong to posit *-H1e, seeing that the difference of
this over plain *-e is so small. But an ablaut interplay between
full-grade *-H1e and zero-grade *-H1 is unacceptable for the reasons I
have stated: It would make the nom.-acc. dual a strong case with rightward
accent-and-ablaut movement, which is never found. It would not allow
Brugmann's length in IIr., but that _could_ be analogical. And, addding
another, if the thematic form was really *-o- + consonant-stem *-H1e or
*-e (parallel with the nom.pl. *-o:s from *-o- + consonant-stem *-es), the
option *-o-H1e is excluded by the acute tone of Balto-Slavic and Greek in
this form. To be sure, Beekes also excludes *-o-e in favour of *-oH
precisely on the basic of the Lithuanian acute, but in this point we
differ in our understanding of the rules. If you are content to have some
speaker on IE on your side, pick anyone you like; but if you want to have
arguments to serve you with a criterion as to which one to choose (if
any), ask both parties again.

> Pat responded earlier:

>>> As for the genitive, I reconstruct *-s(V), with the final vowel falling off
>>> due to stress-accent of a preceding syllable: "Ce/oC + sV -> Ce/o-"Ce/os.

> Jens asks:

>> With accent shifting onto a vowel that was not there?

> Pat responds:

> Sorry, I should have written "Ce/oC(V) -> Ce/o-"Ce/os.

That makes the vowel of the genitive "ending" a part of the preceding
stem. If that is so, there will also appear a vowel before other endings
that cause the accent to move from one vowel to the next. Then why does
this not happen when the endings *-bhyos, *-bhis, *-su are added? And in
root nouns where the stem is identical with that of a radical verb (root
present or root aorist), why does the vowel appear in the genitive *-os
(*-es), but not when verbal endings are added? These problems evaporate if
the stem is posited as consonant-final, and the gen. morpheme is *-os
(*-es).

> I think one important factor that should be considered in these equations is
> the example Beekes gives on p. 195 of Greek <o{'}sse>, 'pair of eyes', which
> he derives from *ok{w}-iH{1} THROUGH *ok{w}-ye. We could, just as easily,
> posit a dual in -y and forget about the laryngeal.

> Jens writes:

>> In this particular case we could - for Greek. But not for Slavic oc^i
>> (would have reduced i), nor for Arm. ac^'k' (would not be a-stem, gen.
>> ac^'ac'). And especially it would not give Skt. -i: with length in the
>> ntr.du. of cons.-stems.

> Pat responds:

> I do not have the reference books here to substantiate this comment but, if
> I understand Beekes correctly, OCS would not have oc{^}i but rather
> oc{^}e{^}. Is that incorrect?

Yes and no. Slavic neuter consonant stems are few in kind, and their
nom.-acc. dual regularly ends in -e^ which must be pure analogy with the
o-stems. The dual of 'eye ' _is_ oc^i (also so given by Beekes 173), along
with us^i 'two ears' a relic of the inherited form.


> Jens mentioned:

>>>> *H2ner-y cannot give Gk. ane'r-e;

> Pat responded:

>>> In view of Gk. o{'}sse, why not?

> Jens responds:

>> There is no such rule. The /y/ would syllabify and yield **ane'r-i. That's
>> what happened in the loc.sg. *p at 2-te'r-i > Gk. dat. pate'ri, Skt. loc.
>> pita'ri.

> Pat responds:

> Not sure what you mean by "no rule". It is a process described on p. 195 of
> Beekes. Also, the dative has a different base form: -*(H)ey, which is
> nothing more than the well-known *Hey-, 'to go'.

Beekes says no such thing, nor do I know of any basis on which he could
have. The form of the IE dative is immaterial when we are talking about
the fate of the IE locative.

> Jens mentioned:

>>>> u-stem *-u-y cannot give Skt. -u:.

> Pat asked:

>>> Why cannot su:nu{'}- + -y yield su:nu:{'} with compensatory lengthening?

> Jens responded:

>> There is no such rule. In one instance, a stem amu- got segmented off by a
>> funny analogy in the inflection of the pronoun asau 'that one' (acc.sg.M
>> amu-m) and was used in the formation of a pl. with /-y/, this giving
>> ami:, not **amu:.

> Pat responds:

> I think it is dangerous to assume that combinatory rules have acted
> identically at different periods, do you not?

Sure, but you were using completely unknown rules.

> Jens asked:

>>>> What _is_ the basis of your decision in favour of *-y ??

> Pat answered:

>>> The majority of the attested forms, there being no /i/ in IE..

> Jens responded:

>> For most positions, you are right: The original difference between the
>> morphophonemes /i/ and /y/ are neutralized almost across the board and can
>> therefore be represented by one phoneme. However, that is not the point
>> we're discussing; we're arguing about the presence or absence of a
>> laryngeal in the ntr.du., remember? And in this point Skt. yuge' 'two
>> yokes' passes judgment, for this form is sandhi resistent ("pragrhya")
>> and so _must_ have ended in a laryngeal.

> Pat responds:

> Sorry, I cannot accept the idea that laryngeals still functioning in
> Sanskrit made yuge{'} sandhi-resistant.

It is a descriptive fact, well established before the advent of laryngeal
analysis and in possession of a perfectly adequate and phonetically
natural explanation since Kuiper's ingenuity was invested in it.

Jens