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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- 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.

Except that I would like to express my strong disagreement with a
putative form +tesyo. The PIE shape was *tosyo, and in general all
thematic nouns and pronouns (.i.e. those with a nominative in *-os)
make their genitive with the ending *-osyo. The ending *-esyo is
athematic (i.e. properly belongs to pronouns which make their
nominative in *-is).