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

Miguel:

> Another possibility, which occurs to me now, is that the
> 2sg. marker was not lenited by analogical influence from (or
> by re-affixation of) the free 2sg. personal pronoun *ti.

The 2ps pronoun was *tu or *tun. The _plural_ was *ti or *tit.
Notice the pronominal plural in *-i that shows up in what
Jens thinks is the original thematic plural for some unknown
reason. The *-it ending was used for nouns while *-i was
restricted to pronominal.


= gLeN