Re: [tied] Re: The Hoffmann suffix

On 05-02-21 17:27, tgpedersen wrote:

> That is, the *-r nominative of the heteroclitic inflection, you mean?
> But the question is (I think), since all these heteroclitic neuters
> denote stuffs (for want of a better term, ie. something in which
> something can be; or locations) why can't the *-r have been an old
> locative? Cf. Dutch "er word gedanst", Danish "der danses" with *-r
> _locatives_ as formal subjects? That would make a place open for a
> nominative *-oH in the paradigm, which would show up in Gothic? It's
> not that I don't recognize that your traditional analysis in terms of
> two independent paradigms, and conversion of the "water" word from
> one to the other, is possible, but is there compelling evidence for
> it?

The old locative ending of the heteroclitic declension was *-én(i), i.e.
nasal rather than rhotic. There have been attempts at least since Hirt
to identify it with the adprep *(h1)en- 'in', but there is growing
consensus that the -n-/-r alternation (also in verbs) is _not_ the
result of adding different particles to the same root but falls under a
relatively simple phonetic rule applying at some prestage of PIE: minor
complications apart, word-final *-n becomes *-r.

Piotr