[tied] Re: Syncope

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Jens:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Why would a relative pronoun referring to a nom.-acc.
> > dual be in the locative singular?
>
> Hunh?? Because you're saying "the two feet with him" to mean
> "his two feet". The "with him" part that becomes the
> genitive (*tesyo) can only be in the singular and in the
> endingless locative because it is seperate from the other
> reference, "two feet" (*pode) which _is_ nominoaccusative
> dual. "With him" is not dual... ??? I don't get your
> confusion. There are two nouns in the phrase, not one.

You don't get it because you've dropped the 'which'. The analysis
being considered is *tesyo = *tes + *yo. with *tes meaning 'with
him' and *yo meaning 'which'. The question then becomes, 'Why is
the relative not inflected?', i.e. why a relative particle rather
then a relative pronoun. By the time of PIE *yo would have agreed
with *pode in gender and number.

Richard.
Richard.