Re: [tied] Morphology 19 update

On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:10:04 +0000, "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>The zero-grade of *gV is not **g.

It is of *-gV.

>>The demonstrative *to- remained productive and was even affixed
>>anew to nouns and verbs (Arm. article -d, Slavic 3sg. -tU?), but
>>surely that doesn't mean that the earlier 3sg. verbal ending *-t,
>>or, as you claim, the n.sg. ending *-d cannot have the same origin?
>
>This has nothing to do with *ge because *ego: is fully attested.
>There is no alternation of **-to and *-d in the neuter ending!
>Your "counter-arguement" is rejected.

There _is_ attested alternation in the 3rd. sg. ending (old: PIE *-t >
Slavic *-0, vs. young: Slavic -*to > *-tU).

>>Latvian and Armenian <es> show that *g^ stood in word-final position.
>
>... because the vowel eroded away in some stage, however early,
>in Post-IE. Erosion is common in much-used morphemes.

We both know that the pronoun was hardly "much-used". I quote: "From
what I understand *ego: would have been largely redundant in a
sentence with verb. More of an emphatic than anything." If it was not
much used and emphatic to boot, there's not much reason for it have
been subjected to extraordinary erosion.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...