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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o

<Since Gaul. <sosio> is NA n. sg. "this"(*), and not a
<genitive, it suggests that whatever the Gaulish G.sg. form
<was, it probably wasn't *sosyo.

(*) BUSCILLA SOSIO LEGASIT IN ALIXIE MAGALU
"Buscilla placed _this_ in Alisia for Magalos"

Then how do you explain this sosio which means "this" but doesn't have
anything to do with *sosyo? It would be really strange if it didn't. No
matter that the meaning is accusative, I would still bet it is an old
genitive... In some languages (like Slavic or Finnic), genitive instead of
accusative is not so strange in some contexts. I wonder if something like
that could be shown for Celtic (Gaulish)?

<Not the closest from a phonological point of view. It's a
<small step from *<sosyo Koitunos> to *<sosyo Koituno>
<compared with the leap from *<sosyo wiri:> to *<sosyo wiro>.
<Even if the small step wasn't taken at first, but the big
<leap was, it remains a mystery how an o-stem G.sg. -o, once
<established, would have failed to influence the C-stem
<gen.sg. -os.

Well it would not be that strange.... Stranger things have happened in
languages. Also, one could argue that *sosyo and <Koitunos> are rather alike
[-o(s)] and that only the proposed*-i: and -o/-os are so unlike that *-i:
would be compelled to change. But it has to be said that if this scenario
works, we have no idea what could have been there in the beginning instead
of later analogical -o.

<We don't have that problem if the o-stem G.sg. was in fact
<-o:, with a long vowel.

The problem I have with your -o < -osyo is thatnot only does *o: yield -u-
in Celtiberian in the -oC position (D. sg -ui, Ab. -uz, g. pl. -um, a.
pl. -us ?) but also that I. sg *-oh1 gives -u in Celtiberian. You would have
to claim a different long *o: or different relative chronology to account
for that.

Mate