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

----- Original Message -----

From: Âàäèì Ïîíàðÿäîâ

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 4:04 PM

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

> >>Then why does Brugmann bracket the r of *p&té:(r) and *k^uo:(n)?
And
> >>why does Pokorny do the same?
>>
>> That seems to me a classic case of the prioritising of Sanskrit
over other
>> IE dialects.   If Brugmann were alive today, would he have written
that
>> form?

 

>Note that these final -r and -n are really absent in the nominative case not only in Sanskrit, but in some other IE >branches as well. It is so at least in Baltic and Slavic languages, e.g. Old Slav. nom. mati "mother" - gen. >matere.

 

Slavic is hardly relevant here as it has no -C# whatsoever. But it in n-stems it has -y like kamy < *h2ek'mo:n which can be interpreted only as *-o:ns with the *-s being analogical. Thus Slavic would probably be in favor of PIE *-o:n, not *-o:.

 

Mate