From: elmeras2000
Message: 32303
Date: 2004-04-25
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
[JER:]
> >In fact we
> >expect the "one" part also in the gen. masc.-ntr.. That should
make
> >us derive *tesyo by reduction from older *tesmesyo. Unfortunately
I
> >see no way of checking this.
>
> I don't see why we should expect it in the genitive. The
> PIE distribution of *-sm-/*-edh- in the "local" cases
> [assuming dat. is secondary to loc.] only, not in the
> grammatical cases, is very similar to what we see elsewhere,
> e.g. in the Basque (indefinite, inanimate) declension:
You don't see why we would expect the genitive to act like the other
weak cases? I know there are many languages where that is not the
case, but generally it *is* the case in Indo-European. That ought to
count.
Jens