Re: [tied] -osyo 4 (was: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?)

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 enlil@... wrote:

>
> Richard:
> > Common sense says that the *-yo has to be nominative.
>
> As I suggested, a locative still remains a better possibility.
> There is no *-s and no reason why it should disappear, so
> nominative it can't be without rewriting IE... which is
> in effect what Jens is doing. You can shishkabob me if you
> like but time will tell and I'm not scared.

Well, nor is there a locative that actually looks that way. And it does
not really seem to make much sense. But other than that the theory is
fine, and certainly one of the best from that quarter.

> > The only hope for a version of Glen's analysis is that our
> > common sense is warped by the rarity, as opposed to
> > non-existence of, of relative clauses expressing genitive
> > relationships in which the possessum, not the possessor, is
> > marked.
>
> This is ONLY if you analyse the phrase one way. There's also
> a possibility based on normal IE word order if we can tell
> at all that a theoretical preform */wlkW&s ya hWa:kWs/
> meant "wolf('s) with his eye" where *ya actually did refer
> to "at his/hers/its/one's/someone's" and modified the possessum
> like in the Hungarian example.

What Hungarian example? I don't think we ever saw it. And how can "at
which" be construed to mean "at his"? Is it now a "locative of the
genitive"? And did that delete the relative meaning of the relative
pronoun? Is there any respect for grammar left in all this?

> That would be consistent with
> a relative pronoun preposed to its clause. So your point about
> the possessum/possessor order would be unwarranted in this
> interpretation.

There is nothing in the suggested theory that reminds me of anything I
know from Hungarian. What is this about?

Jens