[tied] Re: The Hoffmann suffix

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> 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.
>

Sanskrit has an endingless locative; without the -i we would get
*-en > -*er. Voilà, locative in -er.


Torsten