Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 23:55:07 +0200, Mate Kapovic
<mkapovic@...> wrote:

>Miguel wrote:
> <Celtiberian -o (not an instrumental, which is -u, nor
><an ablative, which is -uz) in my view represents *-os(y)o >
><*-o(y)o > *-o:, and is thus fully comparable to Greek -ou (=
></-o:/) < *-o(y)o < *-os(y)o.
>
>Another explanation is analogy:
>
>*sosya:s touta:s "of this tribe" : *sosyo wiri: "of this man" > *sosyO wirO
>
>i. e. *-sya:s : *-syo = *-a:s : X (X = *-o)

If you can find a Celtiberian demonstrative masc. gen.
*sosyo, that would in itself contradicty my theory (I would
definitely expect *so). All the forms I've been able to
trace are a nom. n. <soz>, a dat. <somui>, what looks like a
loc. <somei>, a gen.pl. <soisum>. From *yos- we also have
nom. <ios>, acc. <iom>.

If *<sosyo wiri:> was analogically altered to *<sosyo wiro>,
why then didn't *<sosyo Koitunos> "of Koitu here" become
*<sosyo Koituno>?

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