While I do see the wisdom of this proposal, I also must insist that
the real ablative of thematic stems has a different shape in Slavic
and Baltic, viz. (-)a, (-)o. The ablative corresponding to the
genitive jego is seen in the conjunction a, Lith. õ 'and, then'.
Oddly, the idea is based upon the impression that BSl. has replaced
the gen. by the abl. - should the form in -a/-o then not be the
ablative? Well, then that's what it looks like, and the form in -go
must be something else. I guess nobody would make c^eso anything
other than an old genitive, so why exclude the genitive from the
list of candidates for the origin of togo, kogo etc.? My personal
guess is that -go is analogical, based on a somewhat subtle
reinterpretation of the gen. c^eso: If the consonants of /c^eso/
were correlated with each other, the form looked as if the second
syllable began with some weak variant of the initial. Then, the
corresponding form for persons which was *koso (IE *kWoso/*kWosyo),
could be changed into *kogo to satisfy speakers to whom c^-s was
much like k-g. The -go form would then have arisen in the form kogo
and have been generalized from there to togo, jego and the rest,
including the definite adjective. I see no evidence for a special
two-peaked ablative ending.
Jens
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> If my theory about the Slavic pronominal genitive is correct (jego
<
> uncontracted Abl. *e-od, kogo < Abl. *kWo-od, with insertion of
> hiatus-breaking -h- ~ -g- or -w- (Russian /jevó/, /kavó/), then the
> presence of analogical forms with ending *-o:d (cf. Latin eo:)
such as
> *eo:d, *koo:d > jega, koga would not be unexpected.