Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

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

> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:37:50 +0000, Richard Wordingham

> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> 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).

Or was that actually neuter singular? In French, the masculine
singular was the simplest form. In Old English, the endingless form
could be used, as in predicative adjectives. Italian and Spanish do
illustrate the relevance of your point.

Reverting to inflected *-osyo-, what would have happened if the
genitive was not dependent on anything, or at least not on any proper
noun or adjective. Or do contructions with one of the arguments of
the verb in the genitive strictly belong to the later languages?

Richard.