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

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 00:17:04 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> Jens'
>> suggestion of dissimilation s...s (nom.masc. *-o-syo-s >
>> *-osyo) sounds more attractive than anything I've ever come
>> up with.
>
>Thank you Miguel, but do you really think this is good for our
>mutual friend's blood pressure?
>
>One would really like to know what intervocalic *-sy- does yield in
>Anatolian. The whole set-up looks very much like the story of IE
>*kWosyo 'whose' >> Latin uninflected cuius >> Spanish inflected cuyo
>cuya cuyos cuyas.

Interesting, I'd never given that any thought.

>Being Anatolian, however, it could also be a
>survival of the structure that lost its inflections in the other
>branches. The Latin thing is strange since cuyus is in fact
>inflected in Plautus. This looks like a case of vacillating norm,
>which perhaps also applied to Anatolian (certainly to Lycian).

Speaking of inflected forms. If Luwian -assis, -assin etc.
comes from *-osyo-s, *-osyo-m etc., then the feminine would
have been *-osyah2 etc., which is then perhaps what we see
in the Sanskrit pronominal oblique e.g. tasya:s, tasya:i,
tasya:m. I'd have to think a bit more about the semantic
development (better get some sleep first), but prima facie
it makes a lot more sense to me than e.g. Szemerényi's
suggestion *tosya:- < *to-sm-ya:-.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...