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

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

> Richard:
> > 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.
>
> You're misunderstanding. The accusative of */wlkW&-s ya hWa:kW-s/
> would be */wlkW&-s ya hWa:kW-m/ because *ya is a LOCATIVE
> and _seperate_ from hWakW-. The clause is showing _where_ the
> eye is and hence cannot be expected to agree in case with
> *hWa:kW-s. It wouldn't make sense in fact if it did.

You appear to be discarding the idea 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.

which you floated in Cybalist 31970.

> 5. Ergo, even if we can get around inventing an endingless
> animate nominative for a thematic stem that doesn't
> exist, *ya cannot be nominative for functional reasons
> because, simply, a nominative can't convey a genitive.

I take it that by 'for a thematic stem that doesn't exist', you
mean 'for a thematic-seeming stem that actually isn't thematic',
referring to the precursor of PIE *yo-.

> 6. The only case with an endingless form to explain all of
> the above is a locative which CAN convey a genitive.

This makes sense if the locative is seen as a catch-all for forms
without case suffixes. In this case, I am suggesting that one of
the meanings of this 'locative' was 'anti-genitive', i.e. possession
rather than possessor!

Richard.