Re: [tied] Pronouns Stress (was: Monovocalism: sequel)

enlil@... wrote:

> Exu:
> > The simplest explanation seems to be tu-/ta- with development as in
> > greek (tw->s). Being a fan of Occam's razor, this does seem to be
> > rather the simplest explanation ...
>
> If only it were that simple. However, *so is not declined for case
> ever.Instead only *to- is declined beyond the animate nominative.

That's precisely why it must reflect a special development of the root *tV- in the nominative, and has nothing to do with the fully declinable 3rd. person pronoun *sV.

Mutatis mutandis, what you're saying, applied to e.g. the IE r/n-heteroclitics is:

> If only it were that simple. However, *-r is not declined for case
> ever. Instead only *-n- is declined beyond the nominative/accusative.
> This fact continues to emphasize that *-r was always undeclinable and relates
> to [whatever, say, "Etruscan plural -r, with remnants in Altaic"].

Precisely because *-r is only found in the NA ("is undeclinable"), it must logically be a special development of *-n, as no doubt it is. The same goes for *so vs. *to- in all other declined forms. It's simple.