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

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

> That's what I've been saying.

Ah, okay :)

> The quality of the thematic vowel would have been /o/ in any
> case, whether the *-es had been added late or early.

Why is that?

> The length (due to contraction) of nom.pl. *-o::s probably
> _is_ a sign that this ending is not very old. If the
> pronominal marker added to the thematic vowel in the plural
> was *es in the nominative and *ey in the oblique, and it was
> added early, we would expect *-os(W) and *-oy.

How so?

> The latter is indeed the oblique form that we see. The former may
> still be present in the Vedic nom.pl. ending -a:sas, if from *-os-
> es (but Gmc. *-a:siz suggests *-o:s-es?). In any case, the old
> nominative was replaced by the oblique *-oy, or by a form made by
> suffixing athematic *-es to the thematic vowel (*-o-es > *-o::s).

What was the old nominative?

Why would *-o-es > *-o::s and not *-o:s?

Doesn't PIE *o: remain the same in PGmc.?

- Rob