-osyo (Was: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?)

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 32041
Date: 2004-04-19

--- 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
> 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.

Except that 'John's own book' makes sense grammatically,
whereas 'John own book' has to be explained as a simplification.

> 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.

The possessive suffix is mandatory in the Hungarian construction.
It's the genitive ending that's optional!

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

Oh yes they do! Consider the wolf's knee: *wl.pWosyo g^onu