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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
>
> > Only if you are talking thematic. In athematic paradigms there

is *-

> > mé:n vs. *´-mo:n just as there is *-té:r vs. *´-to:r.
>
> I'd like to give what I think is a possible explanation:
>
> *-mé:n < *-méns < *-máns
> *´-mo:n < *´-mons < *´-m@... (< *´-mans ?)
> *-té:r < *-térs < *-társ
> *´-to:r < *´-tors < *´-t@... (< *´-tars ?)
>
> What do you think?

I think we're saying the same thing, only you use a letter <a>,
while I use <e>, for the unmodified fundamental vowel. The matter is
of no consequence as far as I can see. It *may* be a little bit
easier to work some kind of [e] into an account of the accent-and-
ablaut puzzle in terms of natural phonology seeing that it
alternates with some kind of [o] when having a low tone, but that is
a matter of dispute itself. In real terms, I see no disagreement
here.

Jens