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

On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:27:02 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>We see that the secondary forms have been completely replaced by the
>corresponding parts of the primary forms. That could well be right,
>as far as it goes. There is a problem though in the assumption that
>the primary *-i offers a shelter for word-final changes. It does not
>do that when it follows a locative. We find loc. *é-i

Where do we find that? C-stems have *-i, i-stems have
*-e~i, u-stems have *-e~u/*-o~u, o-stems have *-oi, a:-stems
have *-ãi (*-ah2-i) or *-oyãi (*-o-yéh2-i). The only place
where we might have had loc.sg. *-ei is in the "athematic"
pronouns (*is, *k^is, *kWis), but there these forms (**ei,
**k^ei, **kWei) were replaced by *e-sm-i, *k^e-sm-i,
*kWe-sm-i.

>, and *-en-i of r/nt-stems, both with distinctly word-final treatment of the part
>preceding the *-i.

The treatment in the r/n-stems is distinctly non-word-final:
otherwise we would have had *-er-i.

>We never find an alternation before this *-i.
>This compromises the necessary stage with *-o-z : *-e-s-i and *-o-
>d : *-e-t-i.

For what it's worth, the ablative sg. does not seem to
support Ausgleich. The non-Anatolian form is perhaps *-od
rather than *-ot. But Hittite -az can only come from *-ot-i
(*-od-i would have given *-as).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...