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

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 32287
Date: 2004-04-24

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:02:39 +0000, Exu Yangi
<exuyangi@...> wrote:

>
>>From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
>>
>>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
>> > >>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.
>
>I suggest you look at modern Cuban Spanish, where final -d hasall but
>disappeared in some areas.

In Spanish Spanish too.

Not comparable at all to the PIE situation we were
discussing, though.

Firstly, Spanish /d/ is an approximant [D] (as are [B] and
[G]), and PIE *d was a stop.

Secondly, the question was whether *-osyod could develop
into *-osyo. It can't, because *-d is otherwise never lost
in PIE itself. In the case of a putative *-osyos, loss of
/s/ by dissimilation with a preceding /s/ is likely in
several other cases, such as masc.nom.sg. demonstrative *so
(for expected *sos), 2pl. p.p. *(y)ús (for expected
*s(w)és), 2sg. s-aorist conjunctive *-si (> Vedic
imperative) for expected *-sesi, etc.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...