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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Proving this antithetic viewpoint with rhetoric about **-z doesn't
> help the point. I've shown how it suffices that "z" is merely
> ever an allophone of *s but nobody is able to undermine that
> view. Yet it is a superior stance because it doesn't conjecture
> new phonemes while still satisfying the sober connection of
> thematic *-o- before voiced phonemes. Nothing but gain.

It *may* suffice to assume /s/ -> [z] __# , provided something else
is assumed for s/t -> [s] __#, as in the 2sg in *-e-s. However,
nothing proves that this is the (or, a) correct solution. In case it
is not, and *-o-s vs. *-e-s does reflect two earlier discrete
phonemes, the "superior stance" leads to "[n]othing but" loss.

Jens