I suggested:
>> Mid IE Late IE
>> obl.sg *gWa:u nom.sg *gWo:u-s
>> loc.sg *gWow-i
>> gen.sg *gWau-s� gen.sg *gWous
>> obl.pl *gWa:u(-�s) nom.pl *gWo:w-es
Miguel offers "two tidbits of friendly advice":
>1) There's no lengthening in the nom. pl.
>2) Webster's defines "oblique (case)" as "a grammatical case other
>than the nominative and vocative". Why did the Mid Indo-Europeans
>think differently?
1) The plural suffix may not have been at one time necessary
in conveying the plural as it later was in Late IE, hence
the "singular" form may conceivably have been used in the
plural. Secondly, Piotr wrote it with *o:, so perhaps you
should talk to him.
2) Alright, but this case is not only the precursor to the
IE nominative, but also the vocative and the later locative.
To convey the locative, this "oblique" case was used with
postpositions like *d�i or *b�i. Should I continue to
use "nominative" and risk confusion with the Late IE sense
of the term?
- love gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp