Re: Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?
> Here is Jens's argument as I understand it:
> There is a rule that a stem-final thematic vowel surfaces
> as *-e word-finally. The vowel in *-yo is a stem-final
> thematic vowel in word-final position, yet it does not
> surface as *-e. This is a problem.
> Could you explain just what part(s) of it you reject?
Yes. The situation of thematic stems isn't as cut-and-dry as
this. There are NON-alternating thematic paradigms even for
pronouns. Afterall we have *tosyo and *tesyo. Take your pick.
So we DON'T and CAN'T expect *-e. We shouldn't expect anything
and if we're without hint either way, we should accept what we
see: namely *-o.
Therefore *yo- < *ya, not *y& in this instance. The latter would
produce *yo-/**ye- alternations and from it, we'd expect **-s-ye.
This violates every fact we have in front of our nose so I reject
all parts of his solution.