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

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

> Jens:
> > This funny thing, "antigenitive", would require to be combined

with

> > a genitive, would it not? In that case *wlkWos- (with pronouns,

*tes-

> > ) would be a genitive. Is this right?
>
> I swear I just said that!!! I said that *wlkW&s would have been
> both a nominative and genitive without distinction unless *-ya
> was attached. I don't think you're understanding the effects
> of two case forms potentially merging here, so you've been
> obsessed with the nominative side of the interpretation and
> ignoring the equally plausible genitive side of things.

Sorry, I was asking for information. I'm not getting it here.

Jens