[tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
>
> > 2. contradicts 1. If *yo (your horrible "*ya", presumably

written

> > this way to patch over the lethal flaw of the final vowel)
>
> Condemn Glen for his true errors. If I remember correctly, Glen's
> understanding of the development of PIE has developments *& > PIE

*e

> and *a > PIE *o. *& also has conditioned developments. The only
> ulterior motive in '*ya' might be a desire to confuse, but I doubt
> he has such a motive.

It is a true error to posit *-o under any guise, including "*-a",
for what the thematic vowels demand is *-e (Glen's "-&") when word-
final. That is effectively being concealed, intentionally or not, if
the vowel is written "-a".

> > > and I end up explaining the origin of *-syo
> > > efficiently.
> >
> > "The eye at which there is a wolf"?? Or even, "the eye at which
> > there is the wolf's [soul? shadow? smell? aura?]" ??
> >
> > > I can't see the problem here.
> >
> > I'm afraid you are quite right saying this.
>
> "The wolf is the owner of which, the eye", i.e. in English syntax,
> "The eye which the wolf is the owner of".
>
> Maybe the 'owner of' morpheme (which I wrote as 'OWN-' last night)
> is not quite zero.

But that is not what the man said. He is using a locative and keeps
insisting on it. And the locative is simply left out in the new
rendition of the intended meaning. Well, then it was not a
locative. "The owner of which" would be the genitive of the relative
pronoun which has not been brought into this yet. Is that the next
move? This has been tested now, and it just did not add up.

Jens