[tied] Re: Accusative was allative

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Torsten:
> > I understand that your objection is that genitive *-s
> > is intrinsically singular and -m is intrinsically plural
> > and therefore they can't have been derived from something
> > non-distinguished for number, whereupon you launch a more
> > optimal theory, based on the fact the pre-PIE did not
> > distinguish for number?
>
> No, close but no cigar. It's not the same thing.
>
> You are claiming a shift of two case endings at the same
> time (which requires a pattern between the two to make any
> sense at all and a motivation to theorize it). I am
> claiming a shift of a _single_ case ending (which only
> requires that the shift in question makes semantic sense
> and that such a change is required to explain something
> in IE).
>

No, I'm not. I claim the old ergative became a nominative and the old
absolutive became an accusative at the time PIE became an accusative
language. That is not a double shift of case endings, it's not even
one, it's the automatic consequence of the language changing type
(unless you want to argue that using *-s, the former-ergative-now
nominative suffix for the subject of intransitive sentences, is a
change of ending, which it isn't). Perhaps you should read up on
ergative languages?

> I object to the fact that there is no discernible pattern
> between the connection of *-s and *-os on the one hand
> (where a nominative singular supposedly relates to a
> genitive SINGULAR) and a connection between *-m and *-om
> (where an accusative singular supposedly connects with a
> genitive PLURAL). Here, there is simply no organized
> evolution of functions to speak of. Thus, we cannot account
> for both changes at the same time.

Not so. The *-s was the mark of the gen. sg. all the time, or rather
of the gen., since plural is a late phenomenon. Once plurality began
to matter, the *-m "objective genitive" was being used for the plural.

>This contradiction
> proves that this simply cannot be so unless the case
> endings are considered in _isolation_ as two seperate
> innovations perhaps. Even in isolation, these proposed
> changes are highly suspect.
>

Non sequitur, since you haven't understood what I wrote.

Torsten