Re: [tied] But where does *-mi come from?

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <G&P@...> wrote:
> > >Latin has a "double ablative", a dependent construction where a
> > >subject and a past pasticiple (*-tó-) of its verb are given

ablative

> > >endings.
> >
> > I presume you mean the ablative absolute. The origin of this is
> unclear,
> > but it is clearly a true ablative, as it is found in Greek as a
> genitive
> > absolute. It is also likely to have begun with noun + noun
> (e.g. "Caesare
> > duce"), The nominal origin is also seen in the -e ending of the
> present
> > participle (rather than the adjective -i ending). The subject

and

> past
> > participle (*tó-) construction therefore may not be inherited.
> >
>
> I know this type construction exists in OCS (dative) and Sanskrit.
> I'll see if I can find the appropriate quotes.
>

Barrow: The Sanskrit language, p. 366
"A curious feature of the Vedic language is that the noun which is
logically the object of the infinitive is placed in the same case as
the infinitive, so that "to see the sun" is expressed 'dr.s´áye
sú:rya:ya', lit. "for seeing, for the sun"; similarly, with the
ablative, 'trá:dhvam kartá:d avapádah.' "save us from falling into a
pit", lit. "save us from a pit, from falling down" ".

Infinitives were once verbal nouns.

Latin facio: can be construed with an infinitive. However, I found
this quote from Plautus' Rudens
'tu istaec mihi data: exarescent faxo'
where 'facio' is construed with a dependent clause without any
conjunction, this makes it look as if the dependent clause were a
dependent construction (eg. an infinitive).

Torsten