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

Jens:

> It is not suppposed to alternate, it is supposed to be *-e.

You've said this "horrible *-e" several times but never bothered
to properly substantiate the claim. I see *-o and I think that
that's what it should be. The first plan is to accept our
observation, not to deny it.

What proof?

> Therefore, its being *-o disqualifies it

The "therefore" here is based on a baseless assertion until you
prove why we must see *-e here. Until then, you're talking bs.

> 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.

Non sequitur. You finished stating that *o was generalized in
nouns, while the alternation continued on in pronominal stems
and such. Well, there is no *e/*o alternation in *yo- despite
being a pronoun, is there? So isn't everything you're saying just
a bunch of hot air? You see *-e merely because you need to see it.


= gLeN