Are there any credible reconstructions for the dual endings of the perfect? I’ve been using Donald Ringe’s -wé for the first person, and my admittedly makeshift -éth₁r̥ and -étr̥ for the second and third persons, backformed from the Sanskrit endings -áthuḥ and -átuḥ. For the 2.du. and 3.du., Greek has -aton, which is just the -a- from the 1.sg. with the primary ending -ton. The Gothic 2.du. ends in -ts, again just a primary ending, and the Avestan endings are unattested.
Ashtâr Balînestyâr wrote:Are there any credible reconstructions for the dual endings of the perfect? I’ve been using Donald Ringe’s -wé for the first person, and my admittedly makeshift -éth₁r̥ and -étr̥ for the second and third persons, backformed from the Sanskrit endings -áthuḥ and -átuḥ. For the 2.du. and 3.du., Greek has -aton, which is just the -a- from the 1.sg. with the primary ending -ton. The Gothic 2.du. ends in -ts, again just a primary ending, and the Avestan endings are unattested.
Because the dual was highly variable in the daughterlangs, it is only minimally reconstructed for PIE. There simply said isn't enough data. It's just guesswork and hypothesizing that really gets these values.