>Hey, don't think your own thery is all that good either.
I had a slice of humble pie once. I didn't like it :P
PS: Theory is spelled with an "o"... which as we all know proves
conclusively that /r/ is voiced :P
>If the whole form *so is identical with the nominative marker and so
>fulfils that function too, it is understandable that there is no further
>"ending" sitting on the end of the form.
No. You're on the wrong path. Let me guide you back.
The reason why *so has no ending is also because it was undeclinable.
It was a particle without case ending of any kind. To put a case
ending on it would be sacriledge.
In contrast, as I've repeatedly said, *to- was clearly declined. It was
coincidently given the inanimate ending to boot. I think that the
major factor here is declinability that caused the lop-sided system
Regardless, this doesn't change the obvious conclusion that *-s and
*-d must derive from *so- and *to- and my declinability arguement
is justified because it is what we see...
So where is the problem? This is much different from merely
assuming that a single *o indicates voicing. This is a much more
obscure conclusion with many other probabilities of somewhat
equal value that are being ignored.
On the other hand, there is no other explanation for the origin of
*-s versus *-d except via *so- and *to-.
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*