Miguel:

>Since I have other things to do, I'll offer five from memory. More can
>easily be found.

When pigs fly. I particular enjoy your trembling uncertainty
skillfully painted with the words *may*, *usually explained*
and *usually compared* which automatically disqualify Latin,
Celtic, Sumerian and Hittite as clear examples of an adjective
suffix becoming a genitive one.

Of the remainder, there is only Armenian and Tocharian. I think
I can provisionally accept Armenian, only by assuming that a
genitive suffix hasn't simply been appended to the pre-existing
genitive. As for Tocharian, since other IE case suffixes contain
forms based on *bhi (a LOCATIVE postposition), its genitive singular
in -epi which is clearly and ultimately derived from this locative,
ironically only helps to prove _my_ point.

>Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with the way this works in
>Luwian (and Lycian, Lydian).

Reciprocally, I assumed you were familiar with logical debate.
Surely you're aware of the old statistical rule that "correlation
does not equal causation". In this case, we have a genitive suffix
identical to an adjectival ending (CORRELATION IS ESTABLISHED)
but so far, aside from blanketing assertions you offer no evidence
proving that the genitive does indeed derive from the adjectival
suffix (LACK OF EVIDENCE SHOWING CAUSATION). In other words, there
are lurking variables that need to be taken care of before we
may heed any of your erratic statements.

>Yes, the Etruscan genitive *is* a genitive. Who says differently?

You did, by claiming that it derives from a dative via Beekes.
The reconstruction of *-si is reasonable but it is entirely
unproven that it derives from a Tyrrhenian dative. It is simpler
to accept that even the ancestral ending *-si was a genitive as
well. (Although the genitive was probably used at times as a
subject marker in ergative sentences... but that's something
different.)

>Not for *bher-. The vary rare aorist with reduplication
>generally has reduplicative vowel -i- (or -i:-) in Skt.,

Alright, but where is the evidence showing the pattern you
described [*bhr-�-m, *bhr-�-s, *bhr-�-t, *bhr-�-me, *bhr-�-te,
*bhr-�-nt]?? I'm stumped.

>>I fail to understand what you're getting at.
>
>That the thematic vowel may cause lengthening of the [first vowel
>of] the preceding word.

Why must it be burdened upon me to explain away a rule that _you_
invented?? There is no such thing. The length is NOT caused by
the thematic vowel. It is either from a lengthened verbal form
*bho:r- or perhaps, it was originally an inanimate monosyllabic
deverbal noun **bho:r (nb. *reg^- "to rule" > re:g^- "chief") that
was later pushed into the animate category via thematization in
the Late IE period.

>Well, so now you too analyze the form *-osyo as *-o-sy-o? In any
>case, the final -o is *not* the thematic vowel.

Now you're slipping back into nonsense again. I never said
**-o-sy-o. The thematic nouns have been reanalysed such that
the nominative in *-os became viewed as *-o-s, yes. So the
genitive may be analysed at this point as *-o-s-yo, with a
thematic vowel *-o-, a genitive *-s (nb. *xwei-s) and a clarifying
demonstrative *yo- affixed to the existing construct. This
explanation the most efficient since, in comparison, there is no
**-sy- anywhere in Reconstructed IE.

My point is that the genitive ends in a vowel, just like the
vocative. So your rule fails. It doesn't matter whether it is
the thematic vowel, because you're trying to explain the process
via sound changes rather than via analogical changes as I am.
Make up your mind: Is it a true sound change or do you agree with me
that it is an analogical change??


- love gLeN


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