Re: [tied] The Rise of Feminines (aka Where's Waldo)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 May 2004 11:52:59 +0000, elmeras2000
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >The nominative plural of thematic declension was *-oy as

preserved

> >by pronouns. And the genitive to go with that was *-oy-s which,
> >extended by *-o::m of other declensions, gave the pronominal
> >*-oy-s-o::m.
>
> I like your other explanation (for the acc.pl., but
> trivially extendable to the gen.pl.) better.

It can't all be equally poor. Any other ratings?

> Gen.pl. *-oy+m
> > *-õm, Acc.pl. *-oy-+ms > *-o:ms, both extended from the
> original acc/gen.pl. *-oy by borrowing suffixes from the
> athematic declension.

This would be a survival from a time when the *-m was still used as
a genitive marker. I have pronounced the analysis that it was, but
is it not a bit bold to suggest it here? Of course I can't prove you
wrong, for we really do not know the rules for this anyway.

> In the pronouns, the oblique *-ey/*-oy often became a
> nominative (as is normal in pronouns), replacing the old
> nominative, which was *-esW/*-osW (the former still in *mesW
> "we", *yusW "you"; the latter perhaps in Ved. -a:sas <
> *-osW+esW).

Do you really mean to equate the desinential part of nominatives
like Vedic ay-ám and OLat. qoi, Celtic *kWei, Germ. *hwai (OE
hwa: 'who') with the *-oy of the plural cases of pronouns and
thematic nouns? I fail to see sufficient motivation for this.

> New forms had therefore to be created to replace the old
> acc/gen in *-ey/*-oy, and different methods were used:

I fail to follow here.

Jens