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

On Thu, 20 May 2004 21:35:16 +0000, Rob
<magwich78@...> wrote:

>*-té:r vs. *´-to:r (**-térs vs. **´-tors) agrees with my conjectures
>so far, but *-mé:n vs. *´-mo:n (**-méns vs. **´-mons) does not. It
>is likely I will have to amend my hypothesis that only *o can exist
>before a nasal. However, why does verbal thematic *o only exist
>before nasals and nowhere else?

It exists before voiced sounds, not only nasals. The 3pl.
athematic ending is *-ent. The thematic form is *-ont, not
because of the nasal, but because of the vowel.

>Furthermore, why do the pairs above
>exist at all? Being syllabic suffixes, one would think that they
>would *always* be accented.

They are suffixes, not desinences. PIE had the liberty to
choose where to put the accent in such compound words: on
the root (*h2ák^-men-: proterodynamic) or on the suffix
(*ph2-tér-, or *p-h2tér: hysterodynamic). One can think of
the suffixes as originally independent words, which could be
accented as síx-teen or as six-téén.

>About *h2ak^mons (> Gk. akmo:n) 'stone': Why would 'stone' be an
>animate noun?

Well, why is <la piedra> feminine?


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...