[tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> The nearest example I can find is subject possessor raising in
> Chickasaw ( http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~smithma/chickasaw.PDF ):
>
> Jan im-ofi'-at illi-tok
> Jan DAT-dog-NOM die-PERF
> 'Jan's dog died.'
>
> Jan-at im-ofi'-at illi-tok
> Jan-NOM DAT-dog-NOM die-PERF
> 'Jan's had her dog die.'
>
> NOM = nominative marker
> DAT = dative marker
> PERF = perfect tense marker
>
> Unless I've got hold of the wrong end of the subject, its

accusative

> marker indicates focus, which is reminiscent of a suggested

meaning

> of the Nostratic noun affix *m!
>
> This would enable the construction Glen wants for subjects, and it
> might well be restricted to subjects, addressing my objection

about

> the lack of **-omyo.

Thank you, Richard. Could you explain this so I understand it? It
looks important. Is Jan a girl, or is the 'her' mentioned a third
party? If parallel with IE, I read this to make us expect <*wlkWos-
yos + nominative> made up of genitive + inflected form of the
relative pronoun. Is this correct? or does it in some way support
Glen's interpretation of *-yo as a locative or dative (of abnormal
formation)?

Jens