On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 04:01:30, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>

>>Regularization means "to make regular". The accent and root-Ablaut
>>of thematic stems (verbal and nominal) is anything but regular,
>>since all variants occur.
>What irregularies? Variants as in...? Give examples.

root in zero grade: *wlkW-os, *tud-é-ti
root in e-grade: *bhér-e-ti
root in o-grade: *bhór-os, *bhor-ós
root in long grade: *bho:r-os, *swe:kur-os

>>What about pronominal G. *tosio, etc.?
>You must be daft. Listen: I just finished saying that the genitive
>and nominative of all these vowel-final stems would otherwise be
>identical if not for the added ending *-yo!
>In the case of *to-, the inanimate genitive *tos-yo is totally
>expected and understandable to avoid the merger with *tos, the
>_animate_ **NOMINATIVE** plural. Aaarrghh.

There is no animate nominative plural *tos. Skt. te:, Slav. ti, Lith
ti~e, Goth þai, Grk toi unanimously point to *toi. There is no
confusion with the nom. sg. either, which was *so (*sWo).

>>>4) The vocative is built on the demonstrative *e meaning "here,
>>> there" (the same used for the past tense: "there" => "then")
>Why not?

Because the vocative is endingless and shows the bare stem *ek^w-e.
The thematic vowel is *-e in absolute final position.

>>*bhóros is an action noun ("what is carried, burden"), *bhorós an
>>agent noun ("he who carries, carrier").
>There is an underlying adjectival meaning to words like *bhorós
>("burdenful" => "burdenful _one_"/"one who carries"). To state
>explicitly, *bhóros derives from the stative of the verb stem
>*bher-, quite obviously. Hence, clearly it's usage as an action
>noun (something describing a _state_) makes sense.
>Whereas, *bhorós originates from the stative *bhor- + genitive
>*-ós, giving the meaning of "of carrying, to do with carrying,
>burdenful". The usage of the latter form is indiscutably
>parallel to Latin /bella/ "beautiful/beautiful _one_" where
>the distinction between adjective ("burdenful") and noun
>("burdenful one" => "one who carries") is a blurry one.

Indeed. So we can't explain the accentuation as merel an adjective ~
noun thing.

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal