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

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:37:50 +0000, Richard Wordingham
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

>--- 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/?

Because I can't think of a (phonetic) mechanism that would
get rid 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.

I'm not really sure what explains the -o in the tatpurushas.
Perhaps it's indeed elimination of all case endings, leaving
only the theme in *-o. One might of course explain *-osyo <
*-osyos, *-osyom, *-osyod, *-osyo:i, *-osyoi, *-osyo:s etc.
in the same way. I can think of no arguments against that.
On the other hand, it's not a compelling development: it's
possible but not necessary. Generalization of the masc.
nom. is equally likely (cf. the development of the
periphrastic perfect in Romance, where the participle was
fixed in the masc. sg. form).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...