> Then the 2.sg ending of the 4.th decletion was analogically
> transformed to all 2.sg forms. Thus the defect caused by the
consonant
> loss was repaired.
Aquila this argument is not sufficient. As I already asked Miguel:
Why the English people didn't try "to repair" I go, you go, we go, Why
the Lithuanians didn't try to "repair" their III-pl with III-sg.
forms , why the Romanians and Albanians didn't try "to repair" the
Gen.Dat. forms that are the same or their Ac.Nom. forms that are the
same too?
So if somebody tries to put this explanation in front he needs to
say more: to explain why this "reparation" was needed, to "detect" the
cause that triggered such a phenomenon based on several well known
examples...otherwise is easy to find "another ending" that fits and to
say that this and that "was spreading" from there....to the place
that "doesn't fit" initially...
Until then this "restitutio day" regarding the "spreading" of "some
endings" mainly that ones that "didn't fit" is an "ad-hoc"
theory....that is put in place of the real investigation regarding the
possible causes...
With all the respect,
Marius