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

Jens:

> Of corse they are different: the nom.pl. ending *-es is that of
> athematic paradigms, so why would that contain the thematic vowel?

Ironic considering that you argue for a thematic vowel *i in an
athematic feminine, eh? Oh, perhaps that was another wrong tree
to bark up :P

> We were talking about the *-e-s of the 2sg of verbs which is *only*
> found with thematic stems and therefore must contain the thematic
> vowel. That makes nom.sg. *-os and 2sg *-es a minimal pair,

No it doesn't. But granted the solution is subtle so I wouldn't
blame you for not seeing it. The fact is that *-es alternates with
*-esi with non-final *s. Analogy preserved *e by keeping voiceless
*s throughout the 2ps. The same devoicing must have occurred in the
3ps since *-et again alternates with *-eti and since inanimate *-d
lacks a medial counterpart, thereby keeping its voicing. Just to nail
the point, the *m in the 1ps is always voiced no matter what and is
therefore the place where we happen to find our expected *o.

So, you're wrong. The 2ps derives from *-&s/*-&si [-&z/-&si], the
plural from *-es [-ez] and the genitive athematic singular from *-as
[-az]. All can be explained with a single phoneme *s with a z-allophone.

> Even under that theory, a putative dose of length imparted on the
> vowel of nom.sg. *-o-s, but not on the vowel of 2sg *-e-s must reflect
> a difference between two different sources of the *-s.

Nope. Look above. Think it over. Come back to me.

>> You continue to insist to us that it is necessary. Yet, the
>> unanswered question persists: "Why?" Why must **z be anything other
>> than an allophone of *s.
>
> Why? Because the subject is the one we're talking about. In two
> thematic inflections, both alternating -e-/-o- in dependency of +/-
> voice in the following segment, we have both *-o-s and *-e-s. That
> is not compromised by reference to an athematic nominative which has
> only *-es.

As per above, this is an inadequate reason. So again, why?


= gLeN