Re: [tied]

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Pavel A. da Mek" <a.da_mek0@...>
wrote:

> > May I ask about the reason for
> > the reconstruction of the nominative marker as *-z?
>
> Because of the rule that the thematic vowel is in the o-grade

before voiced

> sounds
> and in the e-grade otherwise.

How nice!

> > Is this just my theory,
> > or have you have had similar thoughts yourself?
>
> I read it here on cybalist and found it convincing.

That's even nicer, thank you!

> (Moreover, such orthography helps to clearly distinguish

nominative ending

> from genitive ending, plural ending and ending-less s-stem forms.)

It was designed to do just that. It feels *very* nice to be
understood.

> > If it is my teaching, I will like to make it clear
> > that I see no reason to posit *-z for the stage of PIE
> > that we reconstruct on comparative basis,
>
> Yes, it is the matter of the internal reconstruction rather than

the

> comparative one.
>
> > I merely see a need to derive some sibilants from *-z at an

earlier stage.

>
> Is it only the matter of the thematic nominative
> or are there other instances of supposed *z?

I have, with less persuasion however, suggested the same for the -s-
of the sigmatic aorist which also lengthens. And I have suggested
there is this kind of sibilant behind the /s/ of the neuter root
noun *me:ms- 'meat' also because the Sanskrit form má:s has the same
shape as the m-stem nominatives, Skt. ks.á:s 'earth', Avest.
ziiå 'winter'. I have also assumed it for *ters- 'dry' because of
the long *-e:- of Celtic *ti:ros 'land' which I took to be a
restructuring of *te:rs as an s-stem *te:r-os.

Jens