--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:
> But there is an odd fact I can't explain, and which I haven't seen
> mentioned:
>
> 1) the personal suffixes in sg.:
> -m
> -s
> -t
> 2) the case and gender suffixes of the Hittite pronominal
enclitics:
> -m
> -s
> -t
>
> Huh? The two systems should be completely independent; why are
they
> using the same set of suffixes?
There is not necessarily much of an "odd fact" in this. You have
just picked those case-endings that use consonant markers
reminiscent of the active person markers of the verb. The two
dentals are not identical for all we know (3sg *-t : ntr. *-d), nor
are the two sibilants (2sg non-lengthening *-s : nom.sg. lengthening
*-s, pointing to older *-s vs. *-z). Is it so strange that there are
two morphemes that both show an /m/?
Some have their amusement with the English s-morphemes, finding some
philosofical justification for the lumping of the plural, the
genitive, and the third person singular of the present tense. I
consider that otiose in the extreme.
Jens