Re: Some thoughts...

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> 1) The PIE o-stem abl. ag. was still uncontracted *-ood,
> which gives PBS *-aa(d) ~ *-ã:(d), and further Slavic -a,
> Lith. -o~ (instead of +-uo~).
> The result of thematic vowel + /e/, on the other hand, was
> already (super)long /õ:/, as in the dat.sg. *-o-ei > *-õ:i >
> Lith. -ui~, Slav. *-u:i > *-ô > -u.
> If this is correct, then the gen.pl. cannot have been simply
> PIE *-o-om, because that would have given PBS *-aam ~ *-ã:m
> and further Slavic -U (correct) and, if I'm not mistaken,
> Lith +-aN~ (in actual fact -uN~ < *-uoN~). Is that correct?
> A reconstruction *-o-em for the gen.pl. is unattractive.
> The best solution (which I've borrowed from Jens), would
> seem to be *-oy-m, with the thematic plural oblique suffix
> *-oy- plus the gen.pl. ending in the zero grade as *-m.
> This would have been contracted at an early stage already
> (before syllabic resonants) to *-õ:m. The same solution
> then applies to the acc.pl. *-oy-ms > *-o:ms (not *-õ:ms,
> presumably because of the -ms# cluster).
>

Since I wanted the thematic stems to be a generalisation of the
cases with stressed /o/ of the athematic stems (gen.sg. -ós,
gen.pl. -óm), therefore of the form -ó-[athematic case suffix]
everywhere, I wasn't too happy with this solution. Until I
remembered Latin *-os-om; in other words, we would have at some time
the two forms *-oy-m and *-os-om. Is this the athematic gen.pl.
suffix glued on to a nom.pl. ('pronominal') and some late stage of
an acc.pl.?

Totrsten