-osyo 3 (Was: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
>
> > I read this to make us expect <*wlkWos-
> > yos + nominative> made up of genitive + inflected form of the
> > relative pronoun. Is this correct? or does it in some way

support

> > Glen's interpretation of *-yo as a locative or dative (of

abnormal

> > formation)?
>
> I rush to correct an error here. The relative pronoun should not

be

> expected to agree with the possessed with regard to case, but

should

> be constantly in the nominative: "the eye which [is] the wolf's"
> will have the word for "which" in the nominative of the number and
> gender corresponding to the word for "eye". That is, one may
> postulate earlier existence of forms like *wlkWos-yaH2, *wlkWos-

yod,

> *wlkWos-yo:(w), *wlkWos-yaH2iH1, *wlkWos-yoyH1, *wlkWos-yoy,

*wlkWos-

> yaH2as, *wlkWos-yaH2 also. As a representative of them all one may
> assume that first the nom.sg.masc. *wlkWos-yos was used, and
> subsequently the shortened form *wlkWos-yo appeared. If "which" is
> inflected to agree in case with "eye" we have "relative

attraction"

> which is in fact non uncommom, but can hardly be the original
> structure.

Why do you propose feminine looking forms? Wouldn't they have been
an innovation of non-Anatolian IE if they ever existed at all?

Richard.