--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Brian:
> > Could you explain just what part(s) of it you reject?
>
> Yes. The situation of thematic stems isn't as cut-and-dry as
> this. There are NON-alternating thematic paradigms even for
> pronouns. Afterall we have *tosyo and *tesyo. Take your pick.
There is no reflex of *tosyo in any language that retains the
alternation. Greek has abolished the alternation so we have
only /ho/ and /to-/ as far as can be seen through the noise of later
contraction (the gen. is toû). But Latin istum, istud forms the gen.
isti:us which must be the same ending as in eiius. Gothic and the
other Germanic languages agree on having e.g. thana, thata but gen.
this. And Old Prussian combines stan, sta with gen. stessei,
steisse, stesse, steisei with -e- as one of the few stable points of
the spelling. The gen. of Slavic tU is togo and helps little, that
of Lith. tàs is to~, the old ablative. The Albanian possessive
pronouns are inflected with accent on a preceding article, and in
the gen.masc. we have ti-m, ti-t, ti-në, ti-j (the structure is seen
in 2sg acc. tën-d, Geg tân); I see no way this could be *tosyo,
while *tesyo looks fine.
Whoever makes a case for an IE form "*tosyo" on this basis is
distancing himself from the very idea of comparative linguistics.
My basic point remains: There are no known non-alternating pronouns.
> So we DON'T and CAN'T expect *-e. We shouldn't expect anything
> and if we're without hint either way, we should accept what we
> see: namely *-o.
Indeed we must, but then we cannot diagnose it by its form, but only
by its function. And it just does not function as a locative. It
functions fine as an unmarked nominative, however.
> Therefore *yo- < *ya, not *y& in this instance. The latter would
> produce *yo-/**ye- alternations and from it, we'd expect **-s-ye.
> This violates every fact we have in front of our nose so I reject
> all parts of his solution.
Any temperament of this aggressivity ought to insist twice as much
that pronouns just do alternate, and that we consequently have to
expect **-s-ye in case the relative stem is uninflected, and that we
quite definitely cannot be bothered to accept anything else. I will
however like to stick to the overall ideal that this is an empirical
science, so if we learn of a surprise we should take note of the
discovery. In the analysis suggested by Glen, however, we only get
an endingless locative with a surprising *-yo if we accept an
analysis which itself does not add up, so this is not a discovery of
anything worthy of our attention.
Jens