Miguel about Tocharian -epi:

>It has nothing to do with *-bhi. See Douglas Q. Adams,
>"Tocharian", p. 140 (it is related to forms like Greek argu-phos
>"silverish", Lith. anksty-bas "early-ish", Gothic bairht-ba "brightly").

Uh-unh. So, what would be the reflex of *-bhi? Further, how
do we tell the difference from your "adjectival" *-bhos and
the *-bh(y)os actually used in the IE declensional system to
mark another particularly non-genitive case? Are the adjectives
you mention derivatives of the case system markers or vice-versa?
Questions, questions, questions. I guess we have to throw
Tocharian away too because it is, again, by no means certain.

So what does that leave you with? Apparently nothing.

>>You did, by claiming that it derives from a dative via Beekes.
>
>Read again what I wrote. The Etruscan *dative* is derived from
>the *genitive* (+ locative): *-si + -i > Dat. -si. Gen *-si > -s.

Alright, good. Thank god.

>In Vedic, some 80 roots take this aorist (not <bhr> "to carry",
>though: as I said, I used *bher- only as an example). E.g. (a)vid�m "I
>found" (*wid-�-m), (a)d�m "I gave" (*dh3-�-m), (a)dh�m "I put" (*dHh1-�m),
>(a)sth�m "I stood" (*sth2-�-m),
>(a)sad�m "I sat" (*s[e]d-�-m), (a)krad�m "I cried out" (*k(W)rnd-�-m), etc.

It's cute how you try to conceal important details with
parentheses. Please stop writing "(a)" for all these roots. Just
accept that *bhr- was avoided here because it would have caused
a paradigmatically obscure root. A root MUST contain at least
ONE syllable throughout its paradigm.

It would seem, at least in the case of Sanskrit, that *e- was
yet another way of lending a syllable to an otherwise icky
nonsyllabic root. My point is that there could never be such a
form as **bhr-�m. Only forms like *ebhr�m, *bhebhr�m, *bhibhr�m, *bher�m,
etc. appear to be possible.

>Vrddhi in thematic formations is a well-known phenomenon. Read any decent
>introduction to IE linguistics.

What a surprise: The logical Miguel confuses correlation
with causation, yet again. No matter how much I read up on IE
linguistics, I will never find mention of this vrddhi _caused_
by thematization.

>Yes, by claiming *-osyo contradicts the rule that the thematic
>vowel is *-e in final position. That must mean that you analyze
>it as *-o- (thematic vowel) -sy- (whatever) -o (thematic vowel).

There is no contradiction on my end. Analogy with the locative
*e caused the change in the vocative from *-o to *-e. The genitive
was not associated with the this locative and therefore did not
change. A sound change would require that all instances of *-o
change to *-e. Since this is evidentally not the case, you require
yet more laws to explain the deviation. Therefore, your theory is
far less efficient by assuming more than necessary.

>So this has no relevance whatsoever to whether the thematic vowel is
>*-e in final position. Good.

No. The thematic vowel started as *-o in all final positions.
The nominative, vocative, locative and dative were originally
endingless, but obviously in the thematic paradigm, only the
vocative remains endingless but altered by analogy.


- love gLeN


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