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

Jens:

> On a more abstract level, i.e. in an earlier stage, the 2sg *-s
> has arisen out of a word-final *-t, while the 3sg *-t has arisen
> out of something else, apparently something containing a nasal
> feature (a prenasalized /Nd/?).

Miguel:

> Why "apparently"?? There's nothing nasal about the 3sg., as
> far as I can see.

Nor can I. Does anyone else see the irony that Jens is trying to
give us an account of preIE without any understanding of what
he's reconstructing towards?

He can't seem to accept that this *-t is related to *to- because he
can't accept that that demonstrative was originally gender-nonspecific
because he can't accept that *so is merely a seperate particle that
was infused into the *to-paradigm as is plainly visible to anybody
with half a brain because he can't let go of his *s/*t sound change
obsession which yields no insight into IE whatsoever.

Frustrating.


Miguel:

> (1) The masc. nom. sg. is *-z and the (pronominal) n. NA sg.
> is *-d, while the corresponding demonstrative pronouns are
> *so and *to-d. This can be no coincidence.

It's common sense.


Miguel:

> As to the voicing or not of *-t, *-s, *-h2 in final
> position, the forms derived from *so/*to (and *tu) show
> voicing (*-z, *-d) in the nominal forms (nom.sg., NA n.
> sg.), no voicing in the verbal forms (2/3 sg. *-s, 3sg.
> *-t). PIE was SOV, so that's quite understandable: there
> was no voicing in sentence-final position.

Interesting idea. I'll ponder that.


Miguel:

> As I had originally formulated the final voicing rule, it
> only affected asyllabic endings.

As you admit, it doesn't account for the facts. The simplest
thing to do is to just leave it as: All final phonemes are voiced
except for laryngeals. This works the best.


= gLeN