Re: -i, -u

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:31:55 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >Some say there was another locative suffix -u (based on the

loc.pl.

> >-si, -su).
>
> I don't. I say it's the same one (*-i), affected by Umlaut
> after a *w, *xW (= *h3) or *sW (the original shape of the
> plural suffix).
>
> We have -i > -u in the loc.sg. of the u-stems (*-ew-i/*-ow-i
> -> *-ewu/*-owu -> *-e:w/*-o:w; cf. in the i-stems *-ey-i ->
> *-e:y).

I seems to me we have -i _and_ -u. '-i > -u' doesn't follow from
that.


We have -i > -u in the dual (e.g. o-stem *-oy-h3-i

> -> *-oyh3u -> Grk. -oiiu-n, -oiin).

do.


And we have -i > -u in

> the plural *-sW-i > -su (Greek -si) [confirming that the
> Armenian plural suffix -k` directly continues *-(e)sW, with
> *sw > k` as is regular in Armenian].
>

or we have -su > -sW > k`.



All very probable. But supposing the explanation holds that the
present 3rd sg -t is a gerund or participle suffix, I still don't
have an explanation why a form with the locative suffix -i can hold
the same syntactic place in the sentence as one without (endingless
locative?).

Torsten