[This is a message from Jens, which I'm forwarding to the
group]
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer
<mcv@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:14:40 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard
> Rasmussen <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >The effect of analogy could just as well be like this: *-to-syo-
> *-toyo- > *-teyyo- (after *eyyo-, the prestage of eius) > *-teiyo-
> > *-ti:yo-. In that case it works fine, why mustn't it?
>
> The analogical steps are completely unnecessary. It works
> just fine by regular processes:
>
> *-tosyo > *-toyyo > *-teyyo > *-ti:(y)o > -ti:us
That is phonetically regular only if there is no regular
simplification of *-yy- after non-first vowel (mora). This
traditional belief may be right, in which case there is no
possibility of accounting for Lat. ferat in the same way as
OIr. beraid although both are subjunctives of thematic
verbs. You are writing as if this were a new thought, it was
in fact Anders Jørgensen's point of departure, i.e. general
opinion before he got started. The new observation is that
to combine the Italo-Celtic morphological colleagues it
would take the introduction of a rule simplifying *-yy-
after non-first vowel to *-y- before the loss of
intervocalic *-y- in Italic. That works fine, except that a
few forms will then have to be analogical. The analogy to be
assumed if isti:us, u:ni:us are to avoid reflecting
undisturbed *-esyo is not strange by any standard; you tried
to make it look that way, but did not succeed. The fact that
*non-assumption* of a morphological solution that will
necessitate an analogy makes the analogy superfluous is a
pure tautology. You know that already of course,
I'm saying this to show others the tendentious character
your protests have.
> >The derivation of Oscan -eis from
> >*-esyo is itself very far from being certain. If the classical
> >explanation
> >as the ending of i-stems is correct, there are no real problems.
>
> That doesn't explain G. O. eiseis, U. erer (< *esyo).
Oh no? What's wrong with *eis-eis, repeated i-stem genitive?
Since -eis is also the genitive of o-stems in O-U, the stem
was then treated as *eiso-. What is so strange about having
a word whose nominative is *is (Osc. iz-ik) inflect as an
i-stem? Why do you not even mention this obvious analysis?
>
> >I don't
> >see the point in just arbitrarily picking and choosing among
> >remote possibilities in such a way that morphologically sensible
> >solutions become impossible.
>
> I was about to say the same thing.
You would not be right if you did.
Jens
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...