Jens:
> The form can at best mean 'an eye of a wolf', but that should
> qualify also.
Oh yes, sorry. I accidentally pluralized it in English. Still,
take the example for what it is.
>However, it does not add up:
>
> If *-yo is an endingless locative of the relative pronoun (Oh
> dear, ending in *-o), and the s-forms are nominatives, the phrase
> would be construed to mean "the eye at which there is a wolf".
> That is nowhere near what is meant.
It still is semantically the same as a possessive construct,
although the nuance you give it attempts to obscure a relationship
that still can be seen here. It shouldn't be translated as "there
is a wolf" but it still gives us a possessive.
In fact, it may just as well be that the phrase was once
mLIE */wlkW&-s ya hWa:kW-s/ which can then mean that *ya is
in reality modifying the following noun. Hence "the wolf
(*wlkW&s) at which (*ya) [is] the eye (*hWa:kWs)". Afterall,
we do see the relative particle preceding the clause in IE.
Either interpretation will do in the end but we always need to
have the *-yo portion in the locative to make any sense of it
without leaping to conjecture that there is a case ending we
can't see. You continue to struggle to get me to believe in
something no one can see but you.
> There are lots of endingless locatives in IE, they just never
> end in *-o. The only case in point I know for the thematic
> vowel is the "augment" *(H1)é 'then' and perhaps the particle
> *kWe 'and'.
Erh, definitely not *kWe, but certainly *e, yes. You see, *e is
the proper and ancient oblique form of *i- (just as *twe is the
oblique of *tu:) but a locative *i developped out of analogy with
the typical endingless locatives at the time. Then a new locative
was built for all these demonstratives as the language changed
once again.
As I said, the indicative in *-i and the locative *-i shows
the endingless stem in plain view. Again, a locative interpretation
of both particles makes the most sense since the indicative
would once assert the existence of an action "at this/that time;
now; then" and the locative... well, having it derive from a
locative ending is completely natural.
> Word-final thematic vowels have the shape *-e. One way of
> accounting for the irregular shape *-o would be to imagine [...]
Stop! We don't imagine anything because you haven't shown that
*-o in *-syo must derive from a "thematic vowel". You're solving
problems that don't even exist again! It's your strange obsession.
> That does not necessarily make it flawed. All explanation in
> internal reconstruction is circular, it is only a matter of the size
> of the circle.
If so, then we must reject all the times you've accused me of being
circular :) We can't have that, now can we? Internal reconstruction
should be based on what we observe and the more general the
conclusions we can base our overall viewpoints on, the better.
I don't see that as being "circular".
Rather, if you insist on something that isn't there and provide
other evidence that is equally not there to support it... that's
really circular and has no place in internal reconstruction. Yet
this is exactly what you're doing with **-syoz and **soz.
> Hey, that was an objection raised against your analysis, not against
> mine. I am not sure it is valid. Even if the 'eye' of your master
> sentence may also occasionally be the object of a larger phrase, it
> would be "the eye at which the wolf is" with the wolf constantly in
> the nominative. But that demands this underlying analysis which we
> have not seen you make.
In order for you to propose *-syo having the case ending, you must
show how "WHICH" is nominative, not "wolf" or "eye"! So by adding
*-z/*-s to *yo, you're saying "the eye which the wolf is".
Evidently senseless for the purpose of creating a genitive unless
it's "the eye which is OF the wolf" making *wlkWos necessarily a
genitive even though it's identical with the nominative. Yet, since
there's nothing distinguishing the genitive and the nominative at
this stage... how can this possibly be so without remembering
that the nominative-looking word is a genitive? Are you suggesting
that IE speakers were well versed in etymology? If not, they
surely would forget what case it's in. All they'd no is that they'd
have to come up with a structure that would convey without ambiguity
the genitive they wish to express. Hence *yo.
Your solution opens up a paradox. How do you feel, Pandora?
> So now the first part of *wlkWos-yo is itself already a genitive?
Well, if anything it could be either case for the very reason why
*yo was added in the first place... to disambiguate the nominative
and the genitive. However, in your analysis, you NEED to have
*-s- be the genitive. A nominative is senseless, yet it would be
nominative by default unless disambiguated in the first place.
Adding *-yo by itself doesn't do this because it yields "The wolf
which is the eye" yet it can't be the genitive until it's made
different from the nominative. No sense!
In my interpretation, *wlkWos may be either case. It has no
bearing in the end with the analysis, really. Whether it's "the
eye (nom) at which (loc) the wolf is (nom)" or "the eye (nom)
at which (loc) the wolf is of (gen)", it makes little difference.
The meaning still conveys possession. Granted it may be wonky.
So, if we take the above suggestion that *yo may in fact
mark the FOLLOWING noun, the possessed, then we either get
"the wolf (nom) at which (loc) is the eye (nom)" or "of
the wolf (gen) at which (loc) is the eye (nom)". It may
even mean "of the wolf TO which is the eye" since the
dative and locative were both endingless at the time.
Regardless of any single way we slice it, it all indicates
possession. The analysis of *wlkWos as a genitive or nominative
then is immaterial to my view while necessarily a genitive in
yours, to add to the necessity that a case ending must exist
where we never find it. Your view is clearly not optimal.
So *ya was certainly the original locative of *yas (> *yos).
> These are arrogant decrees issued on no basis at all.
If "decreeing" that *so is undeclined for case when it truly is,
then you'll never get it. It's your own arrogance you should
worry about. Your greatest fear is the fear of being wrong and
I see the anger building up as you cannot come to terms with it.
I guess I'd do the same if I saw being wrong as a personal failure
rather than a character-building strength.
Since _I've_ admitted many times of being wrong and I never heard
you once doing the same when you have been, your continuing
accusation about decrees in light of **z is really coo-coo-for-
cocoa-puffs.
> Rather if you go to the extreme of appointing *yo an endingless
> locative of irregular shape used in an illogical syntactic
> construction, why not do the same with *so which is structured
> just the same?
Obvious: *so has absolutely no case endings what so ever. We see
that *yo- does. Ergo, mLIE *sa was not the locative of anything.
Rather, *ta (with the optional addition of postparticles like
*bHi or *dHi) was its corresponding locative.
= gLeN