--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> Why not a neuter ending, given the fact that the formation is
> hypocoristic?
Two reasons: because the semantics are definitely masculine (heroes
routinely have names in -o, the word "hypocoristic" conveniently
papers over this point) and because there is the problem of the
indeclinability. Both points are unproblematic on the basis of Nsg -o
and remain unexplained otherwise.
It is my impression (at least: it *was* my impression 15 years ago
when I was working on it) that this is typical of the situation: o#
yields straightforward solutions whereas U# spawns the need to devise
ad hoc solutions.
Take the 1pl endings. If I remember correctly we have the endings:
mU#, mo# and me#. These endings look as if they cannot be reduced to
each other, they all exist. Why assume that mU# and not mo# reflects
*mos#?
However to me the systemic point has always seemed most persuasive.
If you assume *-os yielded *-o what you end up with is a
morphological ambiguity that must have been bothersome to the
speakers, particularly in a period in which so many speakers of other
languages were being assimilated to Slavic. The Nsg ending *-o
carried the seeds of its own destruction. The ambiguity of the ending
was most irksome in the case of nouns denoting inanimate objects and
least so in the case of personal names, so the former are likely to
have carried through the substitution first. Note that forms like
*narodot* are no longer ambiguous because the substitution has been
carried through in the clitic, hence they too may well have persisted
for longer.
...
> ... Slavic studies are hardly
> exceptional in this respect. I specialise in the history of English
> and Germanic, and, believe me, "didactically convenient" fiction
> dominates the handbooks in my field as well.
That may well be the case. ;)
[I do seem to recall though that the historical phonology of Old
English, Old Norse and Old High German brings you face-to-face with
pretty complex issues sooner than does the historical phonology of
OCS or most Slavic daughter languages. After that, Slavic seemed
almost embarrassingly regular.]
> Oh, well, please argue against my views by all means! I've often
> changed my mind before after a good debate.
I'm sorry but it would need doing a lot of homework I can't afford
doing just now. Fifteen years is a long time.
Best, Willem