Re: [tied] Re: Syncope

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Abdullah Konushevci wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> >
>
> > I accept the identification of the last part of the gen.sg. ending
> *-
> > o-syo with the relative pronoun, only I think it has been added to
> a
> > genitive form, not a nominative. The old underlying syntax would
> be
> > just as in Albanian and the history of Persian.
>
> > Jens
> ************
> Dear Jens,
> Would you, please, be so kind to further explain it through all
> paradigm?

Sure, but that's too easy, for the IE form is not inflected. We only have
the *idea' that, say, *wiH1rósyo *póde 'the man's two-feet' or *tésyo
*póde 'his two-feet' in origin consists of a genitive made from a stem +
zero-grade of /-os/, i.e. *té-s (and analogically *wiH1ró-s with -o- from
other parts of the paradim), plus an uninflected form of the relative
pronoun *yó-s 'who, which'. The original form would have had inflection in
concord with the possessum, in this case an animate nom.-acc. dual
*yó:(w), and the intended meaning of *té-s-yo: pód-e would have been 'the
two feet which (are) his'. That's the form the proto-izafet constructions
of Old Iranian have.

Jens