Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

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

> As long as I don't understand the structure of those dative
> forms of the personal pronouns, I prefer to explain the *-o
> of *-(eo)syo in a way similar to the demonstrative *so, i.e.
> as dissimilation of *<s...s>, as proposed by Jens. The
> masc. nom. form of the genitive adjective *-(eo)syo-s became
> generalized, and lost it's final *-s by dissimilation.

Why can't *-(e/o)syo-d have been simplified by loss of /d/?

Could there have been analogical influence from tatpurushas? Their
first element ended in plain -o for thematic nouns. Furthermore, if
the -yo derives from a nominative, there may have been competition
between nominative and oblique (including accusative) endings to
further complicate matters.

Richard.