[tied] Re: -osyo 3 (Was: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> An error:
> > This has been shown to be a non-issue. It's the synthesis of
> > *t-e-x-, not *te-x-.
>
> I mean *t-ex-, not *t-e-x-, where *-ex is the feminine ending,
> sorry. That makes a teensy bit of difference.
>
> To be clear, the feminine ending when it was created was not a
> feminine ending; it was a human collective ending.

That is a theory, perhaps a true one, but still only a theory as
long as it has not been proved. It is not solved by a simple decree.

> It was
> created during Schwa Diffusion, producing *-ex out of *-&x
> because *x was voiceless [h.]. When the feminine gender was
> being popularized in nonAnatolian dialects of IE, this same
> ending was applied for this purpose in nouns and subsequently
> tacked onto what was perceived to be the initial *t- segment in
> the alternating *t[e/o]- paradigm, producing a perceived string
> *t-ex- in non-nominative feminine forms by simple analogy.

There is no underlying vowel in the colletive/feminine morpheme *-
H2. The form is a strong case, and there is no full-grade variant.

Therefore, *táH2 must be analysed as *té-H2.

Jens