From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>Miguel:Of course I'm aware of that. I just don't agree. The loc. sg. has
>>I realize that this analysis perforce leads to the conclusion that
>>loc.pl. *-su likewise comes from *-sw-i (Grk. -si), leading thus to
>>nom.pl. *-es < *-esw, explaining Arm. -k`, etc. etc., which you may
>>not be prepared to accept.
>Oh Miguel, are you not aware of T. Burrow and "The Sanskrit Language"? If I
>remember correctly, his analysis of *-su is that it simply derives from the
>plural ending *-es plus *-u, a "locative" suffix that arose purely by
>analogy from *u-terminating collective inanimates plus the fact that many
>adverbs, enclitics and the like, which end in *-u (or for that matter *-i as
>in *bhi or *dhi) just happen to have a locative sense attributed to them.