From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 44485
Date: 2006-05-05
OE -s is preserved in the nom.pl. of thematic masculines (which was
originally *-o:s-es > PGmc. *-o:ziz) and the thematic gen.sg.
(originally *-oso > PGmc. *-aza), but not in the reflexes of *-os, *-is,
*-us, etc., where it became PGmc. -z and was dropped at stage (1).
Piotr
-----------Yes, but I have a further question: did the same devoicing occur in OHG, to account for its genitive singular (a-stems) in -es? And why does it have -e- if this ending is truly from *-oso? And if such devoicing did not occur in ON (to explain the nom./acc. pl. ending -ar), why doesn't ON have -r as the genitive singular ending of a-stems instead of -s? I thought the more accepted explanation for the pan-Germanic genitive singular of a-stems was that it is pronominal in origin, from *-eso, on the analogy of *teso, *kWeso, forms of the genitive singular of *so and *kwis/kwos (beside *tosjo, *kWosjo and others).Andrew
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/