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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 1:32 AM
Subject: 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>.

<iomui> is also attested...
I don't think that *sosyo is attested in Celtiberian, but it is attested in
Gallic <sosio> (does that affect your theory on -i: < *-osyo?).

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

It could be explained by the connection of o- and a:-stems, like
analogically Ab sg -az in a:-stems from o-stem -uz (I am not sure if this -z
is attested in other declensional types like in Latin, if it is this is not
a good example). They are also pairs in adjectives (*newos - *neweh2 etc.)
so it could be argued that the analogy affected only the closest paradigm
(o-stems).

Mate