[tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

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

> > In my interpretation, *wlkWos may be either case. It has no
> > bearing in the end with the analysis, really. Whether it's "the
> > eye (nom) at which (loc) the wolf is (nom)" or "the eye (nom)
> > at which (loc) the wolf is of (gen)", it makes little difference.
> > The meaning still conveys possession. Granted it may be wonky.
>
> What is the intended meaning of "the eye at which the wolf is

of"??

> That does not look like anything that can make sense here.

Also "the

> eye at which the wolf is", while not logically different from the
> intention, looks very odd indeed. Importantly it is the exact
> opposite of the parallels used to back it, viz. language having a
> local construction of possession. Russian says <u menja kniga> "at
> me is a book" for 'I have a book', and not "I am at a book". Can

you

> point to a language that does this, for that is what you are
> assuming for your pre-PIE construct, swearing on a bible of

typology

> at that?

The nearest example I can find is subject possessor raising in
Chickasaw ( http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~smithma/chickasaw.PDF ):

Jan im-ofi'-at illi-tok
Jan DAT-dog-NOM die-PERF
'Jan's dog died.'

Jan-at im-ofi'-at illi-tok
Jan-NOM DAT-dog-NOM die-PERF
'Jan's had her dog die.'

NOM = nominative marker
DAT = dative marker
PERF = perfect tense marker

Unless I've got hold of the wrong end of the subject, its accusative
marker indicates focus, which is reminiscent of a suggested meaning
of the Nostratic noun affix *m!

This would enable the construction Glen wants for subjects, and it
might well be restricted to subjects, addressing my objection about
the lack of **-omyo.

Richard.