Jens:
> I cannot know, for the relevant attested forms are all ambiguous.
> However I am not in need of anything special, but YOU ARE.
Strange considering that you require **ye- which you admit to being
"ambiguous" (aka "not found") in order to promote your unneeded
"solution" for why there's *-o in *-syo. Newsflash: *-o is just
there because it's supposed to be. You purposely dismiss the obvious
and can't stand the fact that there's a final *-o in IE. Patently
nuts. I'm sorry you can't accept IE, but them's the facts and other
instances of *-o exist and certainly don't all require **-z.
Unless you have NON-ambiguous evidence concerning **ye- to supply
us with, your above diatribe is ironically self-descriptive. In fact,
you have nothing left to say at all.
> Now, your theory now demands an endingless form with *-o.
Either it demands the endinglessness that we see, or it demands a
suffix that we don't see. The choice is very clear. We see what
we see. Your rebuttals are now devolving into pointless assertions
without facts because ultimately you have none to support your view.
There's no reason why *-s ~ *-z would disappear here and no reason
why we even need to apply it. Stop this ennui.
> So your theory dies if the relative pronoun did alternate in the
> way normal for IE pronouns.
No, it doesn't matter either way, but in the specific instance of
*-syo, we must reconstruct former *-sya, not *-sy&, because this
is based on two unavoidable facts:
1) it ends in *-o (duh!), ergo no
'alternation-inducing' schwa of e/mLIE
2) no instance of **ye- can be found ANYWHERE
This doesn't mean that an enclitic *y& can't exist alongside a
full form *ya, but the two reasons above completely forbid the
use of *y& to reconstruct the original form of the thematic
genitive. Only *ya can logically apply here. That's it.
> No, I'm showing anybody interested what danger your theory is in.
Yes, the danger that it makes more sense than what you can offer.
= gLeN