Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?
> This funny thing, "antigenitive", would require to be combined with
> a genitive, would it not? In that case *wlkWos- (with pronouns, *tes-
> ) would be a genitive. Is this right?
I swear I just said that!!! I said that *wlkW&s would have been
both a nominative and genitive without distinction unless *-ya
was attached. I don't think you're understanding the effects
of two case forms potentially merging here, so you've been
obsessed with the nominative side of the interpretation and
ignoring the equally plausible genitive side of things.