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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

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

> 2. contradicts 1. If *yo (your horrible "*ya", presumably written
> this way to patch over the lethal flaw of the final vowel)

Condemn Glen for his true errors. If I remember correctly, Glen's
understanding of the development of PIE has developments *& > PIE *e
and *a > PIE *o. *& also has conditioned developments. The only
ulterior motive in '*ya' might be a desire to confuse, but I doubt
he has such a motive.

> > and I end up explaining the origin of *-syo
> > efficiently.
>
> "The eye at which there is a wolf"?? Or even, "the eye at which
> there is the wolfe's [soul? shadow? smell? aura?]" ??
>
> > I can't see the problem here.
>
> I'm afraid you are quite right saying this.

"The wolf is the owner of which, the eye", i.e. in English syntax,
"The eye which the wolf is the owner of".

Maybe the 'owner of' morpheme (which I wrote as 'OWN-' last night)
is not quite zero.

Richard.