>>Why can't *-(e/o)syo-d have been simplified by loss of /d/?
Miguel:
> Because I can't think of a (phonetic) mechanism that would
> get rid of *-d.
Hopefully, we will finally exhaust all possibilities of 'getting
rid of some phoneme X' and return to our common sense (if there
is any) that *-syo doesn't need to be anything other than with
vowel final... ever! Hence *-syo < *-sya as always.
Further, Jens can only bring himself to admit that the evidence
for **ye- is 'ambiguous'... which is his own cute and pigheaded
way of saying that I'm correct. The form doesn't exist to anyone's
knowledge while *yo- _does_ without a doubt. So leaving Jens to
his own self-induced confusion of ignorance and antifacts, the
rest of us are free to focus on what we _do_ know. Since *yo-
is found without vowel alternation as far as we know, we _don't_
expect *-e in *-syo anymore than we see mediopassives ending in
*-e. So any theory based on an assumption that there should be
**-sye is wasteful drivvel.
Miguel lists all the instances of *-o and yet he can't grasp that
*-syo is just another one of those instances. This is qualifiably
insane, I have to say. We don't need to stress over *-o. If one's
theory can't handle something so simple as final *-o, there's
something definitely wrong with one's theory, not with IE.
And perhaps now that Piotr has also stated that double-long vowels
are exceedingly rare, we might all finally realize what I already
know -- that Jens' use of double-long vowels in both IE and now
Proto-Slavic shows how bizarre his tactic for problem solving really
is and grossly unbalances the actual statistics if he were correct.
I've stated this rarity of double-long vowels for some time but
because I'm the 'crazy' member of the Forum who is far too delighted
with such a glorious title to develop a more productive self-image
for myself, no one has heeded my offerings of common sense. Oh well.
Save yourself, I always say, save yourself :)
= gLeN