Richard:
> I'm not convinced by the semantics here. Are you saying that *yo-
> was also an indefinite pronoun? I'm finding it hard to see *yo
> meaning 'at'. Are you suggesting the meaning of WOLF-GEN-yo was 'at
> which the wolf's things'?
Let's try one more time. The *-yo here IS "at" in effect. It is the
_locative_ relative form that no longer exists, having been
replaced by one with new endings. Thus *-yo means "at which". It's
a better idea than an unmotivated **-yo-z, there's no doubt.
So we might think of WOLF-NOM-yo as "at which (*yo) the wolf
(WOLF-NOM) [is]", referring literally to the area where the wolf
is, or abstractly to the domain of the wolf, rather than the wolf
itself. This is like saying "C'est a moi" (It is at/to me) in
French, meaning "it is under my domain" or "it is part of my
possessions".
We then can think of the alternative analysis, WOLF-GEN-yo, more like
a double-genitive, referring literally to the area which is of the
wolf, or abstractly to the domain of tha wolf's belongings. This
is like saying in Etruscan /ArntH-al-isa/, that which is of that
which belongs to a woman named Arnth (double genitive).
Same sh*t different pile.
See how both refer to the same thing, but simply that following the
genitive analysis, the path is more indirect. It still all leads to
the same ultimate semantic goal, that of identifying possession or
source of something. So maybe this is the clearest way to explain
the etymology of the thematic genitive.
= gLeN