Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> In fact, it may just as well be that the phrase was once
> mLIE */wlkW&-s ya hWa:kW-s/ which can then mean that *ya is
> in reality modifying the following noun. Hence "the wolf
> (*wlkW&s) at which (*ya) [is] the eye (*hWa:kWs)". Afterall,
> we do see the relative particle preceding the clause in IE.
>
> Either interpretation will do in the end but we always need to
> have the *-yo portion in the locative to make any sense of it
> without leaping to conjecture that there is a case ending we
> can't see. You continue to struggle to get me to believe in
> something no one can see but you.

What do you think the accusative of */wlkW&-s ya hWa:kW-s/ was?

*/wlkW&-m ya hWa:kW-s/ has no evidence to support it.
*/wlkW&-s ya hWa:kW-m/ is well supported, but contradicts your
explanation.

If -s were the genitive morpheme, cf. other noun classes, the
analogy of English _the_ as the ground down form of Old English
_se_ 'that' (also represented by English demonstratives _that_ and
_them_) suggests that we might be seeing a levelled down version
extracted from

*/wlkW&-s yas hWa:kW-s/ (nominative)
*/wlkW&-s yam hWa:kW-m/ (accusative)

Fire away.

Richard.