[tied] Re: -osyo (Was: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Richard almost gets it:
> > Or are you merely saying that WOLF-NOM-yo came to be perceived as
> > WOLF-GEN-yo, an unambiguous alternative to WOLF-GEN, which was
> > homonymous with WOLF-NOM?
>
> Not quite but close enough. In reality, the *s in *-syo was
> originally a _genitive_ but in our analysis (which should keep
> the IE speaker in mind), without knowing whether the *s here
> is nominative or genitive (just like the IE speaker wouldn't
> have known), we can interpret it either way.
>
> If we interpret WOLF-s as a nominative, it's fine and the semantics
> work.

There are several gaps in my reasoning; the existence of a construct
state and the manipulation of noun phrases in a construct status.

> If we interpret WOLF-s as a genitive, it's still fine and
> the semantics work. What cannot be tolerated however is claiming
> that *-yo was nominative since we clearly don't see case nor gender
> agreement with the possessed noun nor do we find **-yo-s. Thematic
> animate nominatives are never endingless but Jens wants to pull a
> fast one and claim otherwise.

<Snip>

> Another way of seeing this is that *-yo was it's own referent with
> its own case (locative), pointing in this case to the general

_area_

> or _domain_ of the owner, ie: the owner's possessions. Thus, an
> example of WOLF-GEN-yo was saying much to the effect of "at
> the area of the WOLF" or "at/of the WOLF's possessions". This
> interpretation would be then parallel to double genitives in
> Tyrrhenian, in fact.

I'm not convinced by the semantics here. Are you saying that *yo-
was also an indefinite pronoun? I'm finding it hard to see *yo
meaning 'at'. Are you suggesting the meaning of WOLF-GEN-yo was 'at
which the wolf's things'?

Richard.