[tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:33:51 +0000, elmeras2000
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >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 *kWesyo gives teo, teû, which proves that toû < *tosyo.

It does not prove that *tosyo belongs to the IE protolanguage, only
that *kWesyo was not levelled in Greek. Rather other attested forms
shows that the PIE form was *tesyo.

> >But Latin istum, istud forms the gen.
> >isti:us which must be the same ending as in eiius.
>
> Or, rather, the same ending as quoios/cuius, huius.

I do not think *-osyo-s could yield -i:us, though it could perhaps
not be strictly proved. I had overlooked huius. Cuius is a special
case, as Rix has shown: levelled *kWo- (gen. *kWosyo) means 'who',
*alternating *kWe-/*kWo- (gen. *kWesyo) means 'what'.

> >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.
>
> Again, showing that the vowel here was /o/ [*to-od > to~,
> togo], and not /e/ as we have in *e-od > jo~ / ego, *k^e-od
> > s^jo~ / sego, and in the true genitive *kWe-syo > c^eso.
> The difference between -os/-osyo and -is/-esyo is embedded
> in Slavic grammar as *kU-to G. kogo "who?" vs. *c^I-to G.
> c^eso (~ c^ego) "what?".

I see that entirely differently. The prospects of reaching agreement
on this are slim. Even if I surrender, it cannot be used to support
Glen's theory, for it just shows /o/ before voice, not a case of non-
alternating /o/.

> >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.
>
> Oh come on. *-osyo is the thematic ending, *-esyo
> athematic. Pronouns that are thematic in the nom/acc
> (*so/*tom/*tod, *kWos/*kWom/*kWod, *yos/*yom/*yod) make the
> Gsg. in *-osyo (*tosyo, *kWosyo, *yosyo), like the thematic
> adjectives and nouns (*-os/*-om, G. *-osyo). Pronouns that
> are athematic (*is/*im/*id, *k^is/*k^im/*k^id, *kWis/*kWim/
> *kWid) make the Gsg. in *-esyo (*esyo, *k^esyo, *kWesyo).
> It's as simple as that.

Have I been pressing the point unduly? I tried to avoid doing just
that, and I still find a gen. *tésyo inescapable. What you posit is
not what the evidence shows in my eyes. To me it looks edited to
suit preconceived ideas. The i-forms are very plainly enclitic
variants of the thematic stems, this being a reduction that
apparently works only on monosyllabic forms (or in final syllables).
Are we to suppose that the -e- forms are enclitic forms also, only
of longer forms? It does not appear so, if the augment *é is an
accented variant of enclitic *-i, nor if there are such forms as
*eti and Osc. etanto, Lat. equidem. Also Russian segó-dnja vs. Sl.
*dInI-sI 'today' does not indicate reduced status for the e-forms.

Jens