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

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

>
> Jens:
> >> 1. *wlkW&-s here must be analysed as BOTH a nominative
> >> 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.

>
> No, either nominative or genitive will do. It doesn't matter in
> the interpretation if we look at it parallel with "John's own
> book". We could just as well say "John own book" as the Guyanese
> do and it wouldn't matter one iota. So *-yo is functioning as "own"
> or in Richard's examples, like a possessive suffix for "his". It's
> merely for clarity because we can't depend on the dual meaning
> attached to *s here.

So now *-yo is not the relative pronoun any more? The why would it
be a locative? If this is not identified as *something* sensible in
terms of IE grammar, thee interpretation as a reduced gen. + nom. *-
s-yo-s, takes overwhelming priority. And whoever hasn't got the
stomach for that, may be reminded of the strong possibility that *so
is from *so-s.

> The *a in *-sya is in fact needed because it is you who are

assuming

> an alternation that we don't see and therefore asserting the
> imaginary. Until you find **-sye or **ye-syo, kindly stop

confronting

> me with irrelevant hyperboles.

How could there be an *alternation* in word-final position if there
is a rule demanding that the word-final form is always *-e ? Yoou
are basing a large part of your entire concept of IE morphology on
the mere hope that the relative pronoun alternated differently from
other thematic stems although there is not any shadow of evidence
for that.

> > If speakers stuck to the genitive in its old form *-e-s, there
> > would be no such problem with *-esyo;
>
> But this "old form" can't be seriously reconstructed and this isn't
> an option in my theory. Logically, the plural must have been always
> *-es throughout this stage, so this idea makes no sense.

The form in *-esyo is what pronouns have. Pronouns have, like verbs,
retained the original alternation of the thematic vowels practically
undisturbed. Substantives have basically obliterated the alternation
by generalization of *-o- (though not word-finally where we find *-e
in the vocative). Thus, for the analysis of the prehistory we have
to go by the pronouns here.

> >> 4. If *ya were a nominative, there's nothing "genitive"
> >> about the morpheme to convey the genitive. In English,
> >> "own" DOES have a possessive meaning inheirantly.
> >
> > This is not about English.
>
> No, but the phrase is parallel to this.

Only by your appointment.

> The "possessive"
> parallels seen in other languages, some of which were mentioned
> already by Richard, show that this is a commoner pattern than you
> are able to admit to yourself because that would bring you to
> the unlivable conclusion that your view here is flawed.

I still have to be presented with one that really is parallel to
this is an acceptable way. Why don't you pick the correct one and
explain it to us all?

> > Well, that's exactly what the construction does in Iranian, and

with

> > 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.
>
> All this would be interesting if only *-s was attached to *-syo.
> It's not, so tata for you. I'm not in the business of inventing
> imaginary suffixes with imaginary phonemes.

You invent imaginary languages, so why not? The fanfare can be taken
to show that this is all that separates the known facts from an
immediately sensible structure that would destroy the whole castle
you may have simply built in the air. And since the known facts are
not the whole history we just have to assume that an uninflected
particle, which makes no sense as is, was earlier inflected and made
very good sense then.

> > I insist the form has *-o which is at variance with both

analyses:

> > 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).
>
> The only reason why you say that my theory has no basis is because
> it's not your theory... yet. We are not free to "pick what we

like".

> We pick what is logical and we base it on what we observe. We
> observe that *-yo is endingless. We observe that endingless

locatives

> exist whereas endingless nominatives (I mean true ones, not those
> caused by Nominative Loss) are restricted to the inanimate. Since
> inanimate nominatives have no logical place in our analyses of
> the thematic _animate_ genitive, the only other option is a
> locative (since surely, a vocative can never do here).
>
> The only way to get around an inanimate endingless nominative in
> your analysis is to invent a lame reason why *-s can disappear.
> It's frankly grating on my nerves but I can't force you to make
> sense. You're a person free to think as you wish, vote as you
> please, and not turn the gas off on your stove if you so
> choose.

Is *-yo now a nominative?? I would accept that, for it makes perfect
sense: "The eye which (is) the wolf's". It would then be of the same
kind as *so. Why did you not say that in the first place?

> > You postulate a locative *yo which certainly does not exist, and
> > does not even fit our expectations. That is worse.
>
> You postulate a nominative *z AND postulate it onto *-syo without
> basis. My one for your two. I'll take my "worse" over your "worser"
> anyday.

But if the nom. in *-os has another reason that the one I gave it
would still have the *form* *-os, so the -o- is still correct with a
nominative, and wrong with and endingless form. My one (no *-s) for
your two (no sense in a locative, wrong for of it).

Jens