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

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

>
> eLIE *& > *[&/&.] > IE *e/*o
>
> I don't know why Jens has gotten into the habit of calling my
> preprotoform of *yo- as the "horrible *ya" but now I'm _really_
> laughing my ass off. I mean, you have to admit that it's a
> hilarious title. At any rate, the above rule has no bearing on
> the *-yo in genitive *-o-syo unless Jens can prove that *-o is
> supposed to alternate here. Since he can't and merely ASSUMES
> that it should alternate, and therefore assumes even more that
> there should have been *-e (based on what??!), he's based his
> entire theory on a fantasy.

It is not suppposed to alternate, it is supposed to be *-e.
Therefore, its being *-o disqualifies it for the account given for
it. The *-yo segment is identified as a form of the relative
pronoun, if that is now also recanted there is no basis for any of
what has been said about it. And if it is the relative pronoun, it
has a stem-final vowel. That is exactly what triggers the
application of the thematic vowel rule stipulating that such a vowel
surfaces as /e/ when word-final. So that did not work.

Jens