Re: -m, -t, -s

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

> --- 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.

Yup. The two cases and two genders most likely to have been at the
kernel of the system.

>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/?

I get it. So it's not
nominal
-m
-s
-t

vs.

verbal
-m
-s
-t


but

nominal
-m
-z
-d

vs.
verbal
-m
-s
-t

Now that's a whole different kettle of fish.
BTW what's unvoiced /m/ like? /H/?

>
> 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.
>

Good thing I didn't do that then.

Torsten