From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 63385
Date: 2009-02-22
>That's very interesting (the counter-argument to Bartholomae), but
>
> > I know Brian is not partial to many of your ideas, but really this
> > one seems pretty brilliant to me.
>
> Well, thank you. Adopting it requires a pretty thorough reformulation
> of early PIE development of course.
>
>
> > BTW thanks for informing me about Sturtevant's theory of o-stem
> > nouns and adjectives; it all seems pretty sound to me and I would
> > certainly believe it to be the actual explanation for their
> > development.
>
> It's in his book on Hittite, forgot the title.
>
>
> I played with the idea that the original ppp morpheme was -dh-,
> somehow related to the *dhe:- verb, and that PIE originally had an
> endingless nom. like an accusative language should (onto which later a
> nom. -s was slapped, after root lengthening, that would make
> Szerémenyi lengthening much less awkward to formulate), and that
> nom. -dh# > -t# which was generalized in some cases. I think that took
> care of Bartholomae, but it's a long time ago.
>
>
> Torsten
>