Re[2]: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

At 16:45:27 on Monday, 19 April 2004,
enlil@... wrote:

> 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?

Here is Jens's argument as I understand it:

There is a rule that a stem-final thematic vowel surfaces
as *-e word-finally. The vowel in *-yo is a stem-final
thematic vowel in word-final position, yet it does not
surface as *-e. This is a problem.

Could you explain just what part(s) of it you reject?

Brian