Re: [tied] -osyo 3 (Was: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?)

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

>
> Precisely, but Jens is of the camp that thinks that feminines are
> relevant in the older stage of IE. This and other points of
> contention force us to conclude two wildly different views of
> pre-IE. If the feminine is not ancient, this explains away *so
> completely because *se-x is flatly a late innovation of *so,
> leaving *so unmarked for both gender and case (while inheirently
> animate to begin with). He disagrees and wants me to accept *se-x
> as a relevent piece of evidence to propose underlying **so-z

instead

> of accepting what he sees -- an endingless morpheme, ending in
> *-o like the *-yo in *-syo or the mediopassives to boot. Sigh.

The form *se-x is only acceptable as an analogical formation
matching *so if the latter was a well-formed nominative masculine,
i.e. only if there were other cases of this sort already to serve as
models. If all other Nom.sg.Masc. forms ended in *-os, there was no
proper way of forming *se-H2 to go with *so. That is remedied if we
postulate either *so-s or a nominative *yo. The theory under
discussion is rejecting both and so leaves itself no model.

Jens