From: Daniel J. Milton
Message: 21613
Date: 2003-05-08
> > For example the noun wlqwos. If Glens theory is right, this wordthat "welq-"
> > originally was the genitive of a noun welq-. Let us asume
> > had the meaning "deep forest", and wlqwos (gen) then ment "of thewas
> > deep forest". After the redefinition wlqwos became a noun meaning
> > someting like "ting of the deep forest", and later on the word
> > used about the animal wolf.belongs, then
>
> If the underlying base denoted something to which the wolf
> of course the wolf be "of (that thing)", and the genitiveexpressing this
> would be open to reanalysis as an adjective characterizing "theone of
> (that thing)", and in substantivized use it could simply come tomean
> that. By having zero-grade the word wolf is revealed as older thanthe
> ablaut proper, while the substantivization, by accenting the zero-grade,
> is revealed to be younger than the ablaut.