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

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

> That doesn't explain why some roots are declined both
> thematically and athematically (e.g. *weiks, *wik- ~
> *woikos).

Perhaps the latter is an adjectival form of the former.

> There is a difference between root nouns and composite
> nouns. Root nouns are always accented on the final syllable
> (perhaps the penultimate at an earlier stage). Composite
> nouns come in two basic varieties: proterodynamic (PD), with
> accent on the stem in the strong cases, on the suffix in the
> weak cases; and hysterodynamic (HD), with accent on the
> suffix in the strong cases, on the desinence in the weak
> cases. A third type are the collectives, with accent and
> lengthening of the vowel of the suffix.

Aren't 'suffix' and 'desinence' the same thing?

> The "dog" word seems to be a "collective", where the long
> suffix vowel also causes stress retraction:
>
> nom. *k^awá:n-z > *k^wó:n
> acc. *k^awá:n-m > *k^wónm.
> gen. *k^awa:n-ás > *k^wéns ~ *k^úns (regularized to *kúnos =
> Ved. s'únas).

I thought the long o: appeared from compensatory lengthening due to
the loss of *-s.

- Rob