Re: -(t)er

> One more thing: if this is the way for the sentence connective *nu-

> to get itself wedged insidde the verb, other sentence connectives
> could do the same, eg. *sV-. Sanskrit has, besides the *sa-/ta-
> demonstrative (the *s- and *t- of which are actually sentence
> connectives) also sya-/tya- (and might have had *sva-/*tva-,
> according to Burrow). Now if the y- (presumably that of *yos?) is
> also a "detachable" sentence connective (no one has explained the

y-

> of 'yon' and German 'jener') we might have two sentence

connectives,

> *s- and *sy-, which, if they can follow the course of *nu- into

the

> verb, will be an alternative to explaining *-s-/*-sy- suffixes by
> the verbal root *es- "to be".

I wasn't paying attention in Luraghi's book. Hittite _does_ have a
sentence (and NP) connective ya-, except it's noncommital to
sequence, unlike su-, ta- and nu- ("and", not "and then").


Torsten