Jens:
> But there are other examples where "the root [is] zeroed
> like this in a paradigm".
I know. One need not go any further than the paradigm of
*esti/*?senti. However, the overwhelming norm is to not allow
a root to zero itself within a paradigm. Instead, a levelling
takes over and establishes a common root form for the entire
paradigm (which is what happened to, say, *edti/*edenti).
> What evidence is there to indicate that this cannot be done?
None, and I never said it didn't. Paradigmatic Resistance
usually takes over but sometimes it doesn't. It's an
exception to Syncope, and Syncope was all-pervasive whether
or not any exceptions applied. If nothing prevents it,
Syncope will happen.
>> There's no case agreement here at the
>> moment when mLIE *-y& was tacked to the genitive
>> ending because the relative pronoun was meant to
>> be inclined in the endingless LOCATIVE case.
>
> Why would that have *-o?
Thank you. You caught my error. I should have written
it *-ya. A final *a in eLIE/mLIE would yield *o, whereas
*-& is supposed to yield *e unless followed by a voiced
consonant. This is more of an mLIE suffix and I
was accidentally applying Stage I Phonotactic patterns
to it by zeroing it to *& because it's unstressed. Whoops,
gotta think Stage II. This is why, at least for my benefit,
I should put up a website of these rules so others can
verify what I say and make sure I follow things properly
<:)
>> So the intended meaning would not be "(the) two feet
>> which (are) his". It would be "(the) two feet which
>> (are) with him". Other languages like my favourite,
>> Turkish, use this locative pattern to denote a
>> possessive.
>
> Why would a relative pronoun referring to a nom.-acc.
> dual be in the locative singular?
Hunh?? Because you're saying "the two feet with him" to mean
"his two feet". The "with him" part that becomes the
genitive (*tesyo) can only be in the singular and in the
endingless locative because it is seperate from the other
reference, "two feet" (*pode) which _is_ nominoaccusative
dual. "With him" is not dual... ??? I don't get your
confusion. There are two nouns in the phrase, not one.
= gLeN