Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

----- Original Message -----
From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:45 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:11 PM
> > Subject: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?
> >
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't see how you explain Slavic g. pl. from *-oom > *-o::m.
> > > Slavic -7
> > > > looks like plain PIE *-om to me.
> > >
> > > Maybe it does, but would you also posit PIE short *-om as the
> > > gen.pl. of *aH2-stems?
> >
> > Plain analogy. All declensions have -7 (or -6) in Slavic. Like all
> > declensions in Greek and Sanskrit have *-o:m.
>
> So how do you know they do not all have *-oom in Slavic as in Baltic
> and all the other languages that can show the difference?

I can't see how could *-oom or *-o:m yield Slavic -7. And we know for sure
that *-om does.

Mate