--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> I read this to make us expect <*wlkWos-
> yos + nominative> made up of genitive + inflected form of the
> relative pronoun. Is this correct? or does it in some way support
> Glen's interpretation of *-yo as a locative or dative (of abnormal
> formation)?
I rush to correct an error here. The relative pronoun should not be
expected to agree with the possessed with regard to case, but should
be constantly in the nominative: "the eye which [is] the wolf's"
will have the word for "which" in the nominative of the number and
gender corresponding to the word for "eye". That is, one may
postulate earlier existence of forms like *wlkWos-yaH2, *wlkWos-yod,
*wlkWos-yo:(w), *wlkWos-yaH2iH1, *wlkWos-yoyH1, *wlkWos-yoy, *wlkWos-
yaH2as, *wlkWos-yaH2 also. As a representative of them all one may
assume that first the nom.sg.masc. *wlkWos-yos was used, and
subsequently the shortened form *wlkWos-yo appeared. If "which" is
inflected to agree in case with "eye" we have "relative attraction"
which is in fact non uncommom, but can hardly be the original
structure.
Jens