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

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

> The thematic vowel, btw, has to have been once one and the same

vowel

> as in *to-s and *te-syo so there's no logical escape from accepting
> that *e/*o < *& (or some vowel of your choice). Surely, *to- is not
> a different pronoun from *te- so why the alternation? Because *tos
> was once pronounced [toz] and tesyo had unvoiced *s. In that way,
> *s is now in line with the rest of the pattern.
>
> So Jens is justified in using the pattern to surmise a "z".

However,

> he _assumes_ that it is a seperate sound from *s rather than simply
> an allophone and he does this by decree of his own. Therefore, he
> would reconstruct *toz and *tesyo. In that sense, he's gone too far
> because he hasn't shown that they ARE seperate phonemes.

I think this is a very fine and fair summary of the debate as it
stands at the moment.

Jens