Miguel:
>It's exactly the same.
Your view is dillusional. Expecting *-s after 2pp *-te because of 1pp
*-mes is not equivalent methodologically with trying to relate *tu and
*yus together. The latter is a fool's game because one must ASSUME
that *t- was once present in *yus. The majority would simply accept
that they are _different_ stems, and be more inclined to assess *yus
for what it plainly is, a derivative of *yeu- "to unite, join, group
together".
The verb root *yeu- is attested in Sanskrit /yau-ti, yuv-a-ti, yu-yo-ti/
"joins,
unites", Latvian /ju:tis/ "fork, seperation" and Lithuanian /jautis/ "ox".
Its
intensive form *yeu-g- is without a doubt one of the most widespread and
well-known roots of IE study, so I need not expand on its attestation.
There is also *s-yeu-h- "sew".
So, *yus may be analysed simply as *yu- (zero-grade of *yeu-) + *-(e)s,
the plural. It just means "a group (of people)" and its zeroed form follows
the same overwhelming pattern of most other pronouns (*tu, *i-, *kWi-,
etc ad nauseum). There is no need for assumptive phonetics. The
phonetics here are as they should be and the semantics work perfectly
to explain the source of the pronoun.
So this case is open and shut, Miguel. Nothing you've said is any more
reasonable than this etymology. In fact, it's much less.
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca