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

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

>
> Jens:
> >>> It is a true error to posit *-o under any guise, including "*-

a",

> >>> for what the thematic vowels demand is *-e
>
> Me:
> >> And it is THAT that is the true error. It's not a thematic

vowel,

> >> there is no *-e as we can all understand, so Jens, you're in

error.

> >> Prove that it IS an alternating vowel or forfeit this nonsense.
>
> Jens:
> > The relative pronounhas a stem commonly posited as *yo-. So it is
> > thematic, and thus its vocalism falls under the rule applying to

the

> > thematic vowel.
>
> That it is a thematic proves nothing. We see both alternating and
> non-alternating paradigms.

Not correct. Pronouns alternate, so do verbs. Substantives have
reduced the alternation to *-e and *-aH2, otherwise *-o-. I know of
no alternating substantives, and I don't think non-alternating
pronouns can be demonstrated either. They can be **postulated**, and
that's what I say you're doing, and that seriously diminishes the
validity of your reasoning.

Jens