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

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

> Richard:
> > 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'?
>
> Let's try one more time. The *-yo here IS "at" in effect. It is the
> _locative_ relative form that no longer exists, having been
> replaced by one with new endings. Thus *-yo means "at which". It's
> a better idea than an unmotivated **-yo-z, there's no doubt.
>
> So we might think of WOLF-NOM-yo as "at which (*yo) the wolf
> (WOLF-NOM) [is]", referring literally to the area where the wolf
> is, or abstractly to the domain of the wolf, rather than the wolf
> itself. This is like saying "C'est a moi" (It is at/to me) in
> French, meaning "it is under my domain" or "it is part of my
> possessions".

But surely the corresponding French construction is "L'oeil qui est à
le loup", in which the relative pronoun is clearly nominative.
Jens's challenge was to find a language where one could express a
genitive equivalent in a form like "The eye at which the wolf is".
I've come up with a justification for an expression which might more
snappily be put as "The eye which the wolf has", but noting that it
would have to be natural to omit the verb and that the relative
pronoun should not be in the accusative.

It occurred to me this morning that I don't know how one would
express "The eye which the wolf has" in PIE. Perhaps it's just my
ignorance, but I can't think of the PIE for 'to have'!

> We then can think of the alternative analysis, WOLF-GEN-yo, more

like

> a double-genitive, referring literally to the area which is of the
> wolf, or abstractly to the domain of tha wolf's belongings. This
> is like saying in Etruscan /ArntH-al-isa/, that which is of that
> which belongs to a woman named Arnth (double genitive).

There's a similar problem here with the idiom. Double genitives in
themselves are not unknown - "a friend of my father's", for an
English example, but the problem is how to involve the relative
pronoun in any case but that used for the subject of the copula (or
equivalent verbless sentences).

Incidentally, do we know how this English idiom developed? Is it
truly a reduction of "a friend of my father's friends"?

Richard.