The CBB

*bʰenǵʰupl̥h₁nóm h₁ésti óynom.

The Universe is One. And we don't even know the half of it.

Why would "thick filled-up thing" be a particularly natural translation of "universe"?

I suppose one could translate it as "empty nothing".

It would depend on whether one consider's one's clay pot to be half-full or not.

Suggestions?


*sol(h₂)nóm ?

*h₂ol-nom?

*h₂ōwyóm h₂yéws

ovum aevi

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.

Reposting this to the ZBB thread, since this is an intriguing question.

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.