Some morphology questions...

A couple of questions I'm hoping you can shed some light on...

1) Why do grammars (LaSor, Mounce and I presume Smyth) take the Feminine 
Accusative Plural ending to be -S *or* -AS depending on the declension? 
Why not just make it -AS for all declensions? The second declension would 
then form O+AS -> OUS by the same contraction rule as the -OW verbs. 
eta+alpha is not allowed so that would explain H+AS -> AS. alpha+alpha is 
likewise not allowed (except in a handful of hebrew loan words and some 
compound words) and this would explain A+AS -> AS. What do people think 
about this?

2) How is E)SQH/SESI (Acts 1.10) derived from E)SQH/S? (Q=theta)
The stem is clearly E)SQH/T (as the dative singular is E)SQH=TI) so why 
isn't the dative plural E)SQH/SI[N]?

James K. Tauber, Undergraduate Student          ``Perplexed but not
Centre for Linguistics, UWA, Australia	             despairing''
E-mail: jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au                    - Paul (2 Cor 4.8)
WWW:    ftp://tartarus.uwa.edu.au/pub/jtauber/main.html