> On a more abstract level, i.e. in an earlier stage, the 2sg *-sMiguel:
> has arisen out of a word-final *-t, while the 3sg *-t has arisen
> out of something else, apparently something containing a nasal
> feature (a prenasalized /Nd/?).
> Why "apparently"?? There's nothing nasal about the 3sg., asNor can I. Does anyone else see the irony that Jens is trying to
> far as I can see.
> (1) The masc. nom. sg. is *-z and the (pronominal) n. NA sg.It's common sense.
> is *-d, while the corresponding demonstrative pronouns are
> *so and *to-d. This can be no coincidence.
> As to the voicing or not of *-t, *-s, *-h2 in finalInteresting idea. I'll ponder that.
> position, the forms derived from *so/*to (and *tu) show
> voicing (*-z, *-d) in the nominal forms (nom.sg., NA n.
> sg.), no voicing in the verbal forms (2/3 sg. *-s, 3sg.
> *-t). PIE was SOV, so that's quite understandable: there
> was no voicing in sentence-final position.
> As I had originally formulated the final voicing rule, itAs you admit, it doesn't account for the facts. The simplest
> only affected asyllabic endings.