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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

>
> Richard:
> > Doesn't the proposed analogical change in the thematic 2s
> > *-&z > *-&s following *-&si thereby imply a phonemic contrast
> > between final /s/ and /z/?
>
> Actually, no, it doesn't need to. If we have [-&z] and [-&si],
> there is no contrast in the final position at this stage and
> [z] remains an allophone. We only need to propose levelling
> of the thematic vowel to *e based on the default indicative
> where voicing never existed.

But what you proposed in Message 32603 (Thursday 13 May) and I
commented on in Message 32617 was

'The fact is that *-es alternates with
*-esi with non-final *s. Analogy preserved *e by keeping voiceless
*s throughout the 2ps.'

Richard.