[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.

Good and strong reply. "I don't see how this can be right" - "Well
it is!!" Thus spake a true would-be-scholar (applause).

> 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".

No, it's the opposite. It's like saying "J'y suis" for "I've got
it". Or, not "la maison à moi", but "la maison où je suis", for "my
house". The tail is wagging the dog, with a funny morphology at
that. There is no chance this can be correct, its main value is in
its degree of being unvolutarily amusing.

>
> 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).

No, that means something different from a simple genitive. But that
is off topic again.

Jens