>So how do you explain *wlkW�s (> *wl'kWos) and *tud�ti?

I told you so many times. *wlkWos is due to the regularization
of accent on thematic stems in Late IE affecting both nouns
AND verbs. Secondly, /tudati/ is not IE, it's _Sanskrit_ which
doesn't require the asterisk notation. Accentuation on the
thematic vowel is also clearly a late innovation because it goes
against the general pattern of changing accentuation seen in so
many athematic paradigms (*k^won-, *xawi-, *es-, *wes-, etc).

>This is ridiculous: why should *-e analogically spread as *-o-?

For the umpteenth time: The MIE 3ps *-� spread across the entire
present conjugation and the original 1pp/2pp in Early Late IE was
*bheremes/*bheretes. The *e was later rounded in some positions.
Why is this hard for you to grasp??

>It is plain to see that the original state of affairs was:
>*-o:, *-es, *-et
>*-ome(s), *-ete(s), *-ont,

Exactly. This is the Common IE paradigm. What's your point?

>The o-stems are substantially different from all other stems in
>the following respects:
>1) Gsg. in *-osio
>2) Ab.sg. in *-o:d (other declensions do not have a separate Abl.)
>3) Plural built on *-oi- (Npl. *-oi or *-o:s < *-o-es; Lpl. *-oi-su,
>Ipl. *-o:i-(h1)s, DAb.pl. maybe *-oi-os).
>4) Bare stem (Voc sg.) ends in *-e, not *-o.
>5) Immobile stress (either on the root or on the thematic vowel).

1) Since they derive from genitives, the genitive of a genitive
must be substantially different, especially when the accent
is regularized on the initial. Duh! Obviously, the genitive
would be identical with the nominative if it weren't for
the affixed demonstrative *-yo. Another way of avoiding
confusion is to make the genitive *-o:s (*-o- + *-os).

2) The ablative is thematic *-o- + *-ot > *-o:t (Not hard to
figure out)

3) The plural is based on the plural seen in the (thematic)
demonstratives and pronouns

4) The vocative is built on the demonstrative *e meaning "here,
there" (the same used for the past tense: "there" => "then")

5) The otherwise chaotic stress seen in *k^wo:n has been
regularized on thematic nouns and verbs in Late IE

>What about the type *bhor�s (as formally and semantically distinct
>from the type *bh�ros)?

Adjectives were not affected by thematic accent regularization.
Only the noun and verb classes were affected. Adjectives and
adverbs came to be associated with accent on the final syllable.

>It is an assumption, which is backed up by the fact that the
>thematic vowel, both in the verb and the noun, behaves identically and in
>an idiosyncratic way (esp. vis-�-vis Ablaut)
>found nowhere else in Indo-European.

There are many instances of features merging together as though
they derive from one source when they in fact derive from two
or more. This isn't proof at all. Again, only mindless assumption
that looks blindly at the reality of IE morphology.

- love gLeN

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp