Re: tt/st/ss

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2007-06-14 02:46, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Let me rephrase: does "nom.sg." appear in the rule text
> > (this is just a complicated way of asking whether the rule is ad hoc)?
>
> It is not ad hoc. It's highly regular, and if it's practically
> restricted to the nom.sg. of thematic stems it's simply because

*-ros is difficult to find anywhere else. The *-os apocope should also

> be expected in the declension of neuter es-stems, but unfortunately
> neuters of the shape <XCVrus> or <CVCrus> (X = a syllable) just
> happen not to be attested. Note, however, that we have apocope in
> *bHaros > *faros > far 'emmer', which behaves like <vir>, and that
> here the dropped *-os is part of the stem, not a case ending. Cf.
> also a similar reduction in the distributive numeral quater <
> *kWatrus < *kW&twr.-s (cf. Ved. catuh., Av. caTrus^).

If someone claimed they were old endingless nom.sg.'s (and that
s-stems are based on genitives), how would you counter that?


Torsten