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

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 32077
Date: 2004-04-20

--- In, enlil@... wrote:
I've swapped round two sections of the post I'm answering so as to
make the logic of what I'm now saying flow better.

Old Section 2:
> > 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.
> Richard:
> > Oh yes they do! Consider the wolf's knee: *wl.pWosyo g^onu
> Erh, *gonu is inanimate so it's supposed to lack *-s.

You missed the point, Glen. You deleted what I was responding to -
your assertion in Cybalist 32041, 'Since inanimate nominatives have
no logical place in our analyses of the thematic _animate_

> And I presume
> that you made a mistake above with the typing. You seem trapped
> between two taboo variants of the sacred animal in question:
> *wlpo- and *wlkWo-.

The only error in my typing was to go along with Miguel's proposed
*pW. It wasn't meant to re-open the debate - the FBI (I think it is
them) has sabotaged one of my few hopes of confirming one of the
pieces of Nostratic evidence offered.

Old Section 1:
> In that way *-yo is like "own" in English or a possessive
> suffix in Hungarian which is not to say that I think that *-yo
> had exactly those meanings. Merely that the grammatical parallel
> is there and fairly common overall.
> > The possessive suffix is mandatory in the Hungarian construction.
> > It's the genitive ending that's optional!
> Yes... but as you can see, *-s- is _mandatory_ here, not optional,
> otherwise we'd have **-o-yo. So it is the old genitive, no doubt
> about it. The *-yo is also needed here though because it is
> identical with the nominative. So what I'm saying doesn't
> contradict Hungarian at all. It's precisely parallel to it.

In the Hungarian example, the possessive suffix, vaguely identifying
the possessor, is attached to the possessum, not the possessor.

Now, in 'John's (own) book', there does not seem to be any problem
with explaining 'own'; it was originally similar to 'John's peculiar
habits'. It seems you are now proposing that the construction can
be analysed as:


which was the starting hypothesis. Now, I believe the relative
clause (or its remains) is what is analysed as WOLF-GEN-yo. Now,
how did that arise? You have rejected the obvious interpretation
as "which is the wolf's" because that doesn't explain -yo as opposed
to -yos and other forms agreeing in gender and number (but not case)
with the possessum.

Or are you merely saying that WOLF-NOM-yo came to be perceived as
WOLF-GEN-yo, an unambiguous alternative to WOLF-GEN, which was
homonymous with WOLF-NOM?