From: Torsten
Message: 65852
Date: 2010-02-14
>It borrowed both from PIE thematic stems (Germanic a-stems) (like rengas) and PIE s-stems, and PIE (and Germanic) s-stems (like lammas), with the same result (the vieras declension). One explanation for that is that they borrowed the stem of the nom.sg., which would have the same *-os ending (<- *-as in PPIE and -> *-as in some dialects, including Germanic), but *not* in Germanic, which had lost the s-stem nom.sg *-s. The cognates of the borrowed items may be found in Germanic, but the donor language can't be PGmc, as you also remarked (below).
> > > > > > BTW, since the IE m.nom.sg *-s and the IE s-stem *-s- seem
> > > > > > to have the same reflection in Finnish, are they somehow
> > > > > > related in IE,
>
> > > If a frequently used Germanic case
> > > was taken as a new stem in Finnic, it is reanalysis on the
> > > Finns' part and implies nothing about the origin of the
> > > Germanic form.
> >
> > No, you misunderstand me again. I proposed that the *IE* s-stems
> > were based on a reinterpretation of the *IE* genitive -Vs as
> > nominative (which BTW I think is the origin of the IE nom.sg.
> > -(V)-s.
>
> Okay. Then what does Finnic have to do with it?
> > > > > They've the same reflection in Finnish because of theObviously. Why do you say that?
> > > > > phonetical similarity.
> > > >
> > > > Why should that be? Phonetical similarity of what?
> > >
> > > That both are -s/-z.
> > >
> > > > But the problem is here that this s-stem *-s# in the
> > > > nominative must be earlier than PGmc,
> > >
> > > Oldest loans into Finnic are thought to predate PGmc.
> > > (*z would also naturally be substituted by *s, if that's what
> > > you're worried about.)
> >
> > Of course not, since -z- occurs outside of nom.sg.
>
> I've not idea what you're trying to say, but I'm saying that Finnic
> has no *z and therefore must substitute *s, ie. there's nothing
> phonetically suspicious in a substitution such as *xrengaz >
> *renkas.