Alright, Miguel, *toi. I'll give you that one. However, even so,
**tos simply looks too much like an animate nominative and *-yo
is still necessary to make an OBVIOUS-looking genitive. Since
most people accept that *-yo HAS been secondarily affixed to
the genitive, your arguement is pointless anyways because it
fights against common consensus in favour of something ad hoc.
(I know, I know. You'll resort to your palatal-labial-ad-nauseum
sham of a PreIE phonology to "prove" that *-yo isn't really the
demonstrative that it clearly is. We all know what misguided
direction you want this to go.)

>root in zero grade: *wlkW-os, *tud-�-ti

I've already explained *wlkWos as being a genitival construct
and as having original vocalism but unoriginal accent caused
by a later regularisation of accent onto the initial syllable.

Having thought more about aorists with accentuation on the
thematic vowel, I realize that they don't really violate the
Penultimate Accent Rule afterall. It turns out that they could
conceivably have been formed in Mid IE via a suffix *-e (the
ol' "there/then" word *e, of course). This makes semantic sense
since the aorist conveyed completed actions (ie: actions done
in the relative past). Thus, here's an idea concerning a
MidIE present/aorist distinction:

present
-------
singular plural
1p *ber�me *beremes
2p *ber�se *ber�tes
3p *ber�he *ber�ne

aorist
-------
singular plural
1p *ber�me *berem�se
2p *ber�se *beret�se
3p *ber�he *beren�he

So once the vowels dropped due to heavy stress, this left
an accent always on the final. Hence, Early Late IE:

singular plural
1p *ber�m *berem�s
2p *ber�s *beret�s
3p *ber�:t *ber�:nt

What's interesting is that this theory predicts original
lengthening in the 3ps due to loss of *h (*H1). The lengthening
could be easily leveled out, of course. Totally neatoh!

>root in e-grade: *bh�r-e-ti

Again, *bhereti has original vocalism but unoriginal accent
due to thematic regularization. The first *-e-, originally
unaccented in the 3ps plural, avoided loss because, as in many
other cases (ex. *po:t/*pedos), it has been paradigmatically
strengthened.

>root in o-grade: *bh�r-os, *bhor-�s

As I said, the accentuation arises from the fact that the
regularization of thematic stems only affected nouns and verbs,
not adjectives. Hence, adjectives (which function to "modify"
nouns) retained the accent on the final syllable. However, these
modifying adjectives still looked indistinguishable from nouns
and could be used as nouns. For a time, the accent was
automatically shifted to the initial to mimic the regularisation.
Later, people got lazy and the accent was no longer modified.
So words like *wlkWos are adjective-derived nouns which had
been created BEFORE the accent regularisation took affect,
showing all the accentual effects such as zero-grade. This
*bhor�s is a late creation and is just a deceptive example to
use when trying to properly glimpse at PreIE stages.

>root in long grade: *bho:r-os, *swe:kur-os

The development of vrrdhi has nothing to do with accent.
It could be because of there being an underlying monosyllabic
root (automatically lengthened in Mid IE) or because of loss
of *h (*H1), *x (*H2) or *xW (*H3). Accent simply does not
cause vrddhi.

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

I realize this. However, the vowel could easily be modified
due to the locative *e, nonetheless. That would explain why
it doesn't show up in athematic stems... because it isn't really
an ending. It's just a misanalysis of the original final *-o
as a locative *-e.


- love gLeN


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