[tied] Re: Syncope

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

> Richard:
> > 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?',
>
> Because it would be in IE itself, but not in earlier layers
> of IE when the modifier and modified did not agree in
> case. So *-yo is in the endingless locative, which it needs
> to have been declined in to have originally conveyed "_WITH_
> him" in the first place. In mLIE, it's *tasya (*ta-s + *ya).
> Later, confusion with the thematic paradigm caused the *e/*o
> alternation. Hence in IE itself, *tesyo is simply the new
> _genitive_ form and the locative nuance has been lost.
>
>
> > By the time of PIE *yo would have agreed with *pode in
> > gender and number.
>
> Yes, but not in mLIE and previous layers.

You don't know any of this, you are only issuing decrees wothout any
basis for them. Incidentally, you are dismissing the obvious for no
apparent reason other than fear of joining the enemy. The obvious
interpretation is that the relative was a relative and that it was
originally inflected, but gave it up. That's what univerbated
concatenations tend to do over time. The form generalized may well
be the nominative singular masculine. That is, *wl.kWos-yo
H1donts "the wolf's tooth" may have originally meant "the tooth
which (is) the wolf's". The nom.sg.masc. was of course not *-yo, but
*-yos, so we have to assume that the final *-s was lost. I suggest
dissimilatory loss in *te-s-yo-s > *te-s-yo just as in *so-s > *so.
That will permit us to integrate the vocalism -o- into a frame we
already have.

Jens