First, before talking about the genitive *s-yo,
I may as well expose my grave error in another
"Syncope" post. Paradigmatic Resistance is an
exception to Syncope as I've mentioned before so
I'm incorrect that *barena would have become
**bHr-en-t in the 3pp since the root cannot be
zeroed like this in a paradigm. This Syncope is
resisted. Only *es-, being so used and abused,
was given the priviledge of zeroing in the
plural, abnormally putting aside Paradigmatic
Resistance.
Now for *-s-yo.
Abdullah:
>> Would you, please, be so kind to further explain it
>> through all paradigm?
Jens:
> 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/, [...] plus
> an uninflected form of the relative pronoun *yó-s [...]
> The original form would have had inflection in
> concord with the possessum, in this case an animate
> nom.-acc. dual *yó:(w),
I disagree. There's no case agreement here at the
moment when mLIE *-y& was tacked to the genitive
ending because the relative pronoun was meant to
be inclined in the endingless LOCATIVE case.
So the intended meaning would not be "(the) two feet
which (are) his". It would be "(the) two feet which
(are) with him". Other languages like my favourite,
Turkish, use this locative pattern to denote a
possessive. So to make it simple, we might simply say
that *-yo was not only tacked on for practical
reasons in order to distinguish itself from a
homophonous or near homophonous nominative, but also
to reinforce the genitive meaning of the form by
adding "with".
= gLeN