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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, 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?
>
>
> > 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?

I cannot know, for the relevant attested forms are all ambiguous.
However I am not in need of anything special, but YOU ARE. You are
the one who's making a bold assumption about a funny form of the
relative pronoun, and your theory NEEDS the relative pronoun to
behave differently from the other pronouns. The other pronouns of
common IE extension, *e/o-, *te/o-, *kWe/o- alternate by the rule we
see also in the verbs. Now, your theory now demands an endingless
form with *-o. That could only be supplied if the relative pronoun
had previously generalized its o-form just like the substantives -
only the substantives chose to retain -e in word-final position in
the vocative and have not been so kind as to offer an endingless
locative in *-o (or in *-e for that matter). So your theory dies if
the relative pronoun did alternate in the way normal for IE
pronouns. Why wouldn't it? What evidence have you got to show it
didn't other than your beloved little theory about an endingless
locative that does not even make sense?

> So isn't everything you're saying just
> a bunch of hot air? You see *-e merely because you need to see it.

No, I'm showing anybody interested what danger your theory is in.

Jens