On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 22:23:11 -0000, "Knut" <aquila_grande@...>

>There is perhaps a misunderstanding her: I do not claim that the
>thematic wovel arose from nouns with end-stress.
>What I think is that the roots were disyllabic, ending in a wovel.
>Some of these I think had the stress fixed on the second wovel (what
>I called the end root-wovel). This wovel was protected by its stress,
>and gave rise to the thematic wovel.

I call that end-stress.

>Your example (*ph2tér-s, *ph2tr-ós) is in exxelent concordance with
>my hypotesis, not as an example of a later thematic noun, but an
>This noun I think originally had the stress on the penultimate
>syllable. When considering that the genitive ending originally was
>syllabic, originating from the Steppe ablative-ending -ta, the
>development of this noun, according to my hypotesis is exactly what
>you find in reality:
>Nom ph2te`ros > ph2te`rs
>Gen pht2tero`se > pht2ero`s

[There was a vowel between *p and *h2].

So the difference with the thematic type would be that in the thematic
type the Acc/Nom was end-stressed (**wVlkWós, **wVlkWóse). But why
end-stressed and static to begin with? All the other nouns had mobile
stress. And since the rest of the paradigm would have been
indistinguishable from the HD type, why did the type survive at all?
Why does the vocative end in -e, not -o? Why is there a special
ablative in -o:d? Why are the plural cases built on *-oi-? Why is
the genitive sg. *-osio?

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal