Re: But where does *-mi come from?

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

>
> Some nominal and verbal suffixes are identical, as Alscher has

noted,

> e.g.
>
> locative *-i and primary *-i
> dative *-ei and middle *-oi
> 'locative' *-r and middle *-r
> [endingless locative and secondary?]
>
> Latin has a "double ablative", a dependent construction where a
> subject and a past pasticiple (*-tó-) of its verb are given ablative
> endings. Similar constructions exist in OCS (with dative) and

Sanskrit

> (several cases). Perhaps such a dependent construction is the origin
> of the mi-conjugation?
>

Since the subject of active, primary *-i is in the locative, pre-PIE
at that time must have been ergative (as Alscher notes). That helps
explain why there's both a construction with subject + verbal noun
(Latin ablative absolute) and object + verbal noun (Vedic): they would
both have been verbal noun + absolutive; therefore the two
constructions are identical. The absolutive typically isn't marked;
that's why we find no trace of a nominative suffix embedded in the
noun of the ablative absolute and no sign of an accusative suffix
embedded in the Vedic object + verbal noun (infinitive) construction.


Torsten