>> 1. *wlkW&-s here must be analysed as BOTH a nominativeNo, either nominative or genitive will do. It doesn't matter in
>> AND a genitive (a case merger)
>> 2. *ya is added for clarity, just as we similarly say "own"
>> as in "John's book" / "John's own book"
> 2. contradicts 1. If *yo (your horrible "*ya", presumably written
> this way to patch over the lethal flaw of the final vowel) is
> superfluous to the construction, the first noun must be a genitive.
> If speakers stuck to the genitive in its old form *-e-s, thereBut this "old form" can't be seriously reconstructed and this isn't
> would be no such problem with *-esyo;
>> 4. If *ya were a nominative, there's nothing "genitive"No, but the phrase is parallel to this. The "possessive"
>> about the morpheme to convey the genitive. In English,
>> "own" DOES have a possessive meaning inheirantly.
> This is not about English.
> Well, that's exactly what the construction does in Iranian, and withAll this would be interesting if only *-s was attached to *-syo.
> the article also in Albanian and Greek. In these languages the
> connecting particles resume a genitive in the cases that are
> parallel to this. That works just fine.
> I insist the form has *-o which is at variance with both analyses:The only reason why you say that my theory has no basis is because
> An endingless locative should have *-e, and an inflected nominative
> should have *-os. Since both are a bit off, we are free to pick what
> we like - but we are NOT free to base great portions of the rest of
> the morphological analysis upon it, for whatever we choose will be
> very weak here (still, mine is supported by the high probability of
> *-so < *-so-s now, while yours has no basis).
> You postulate a locative *yo which certainly does not exist, andYou postulate a nominative *z AND postulate it onto *-syo without
> does not even fit our expectations. That is worse.