Odp: [cybalist] Why -bhyos and -ei?

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 2046
Date: 2000-04-05

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Hakan Lindgren <h16255@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 12:34 PM
Subject: [cybalist] Why -bhyos and -ei?

Though PIE wasn't an agglutinative language like Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish or Sumerian, some case endings in the adverbial cases (Abl., Dat., Instr., Loc.) do look like agglutinated postpositions. This is especially true of the ablative ending *-et/*-ed (cf. Slavic ot- 'from'), the occasional locative *-en 'in', and the notorious *bHi. Look at the following plural forms:
 
Abl./Dat. -bH(j)os
Instr. -bHi(:)s (non-thematic stems); -o:is (thematic stems)
 
If *bHi is etymologically the PIE postposition corresponding to English by, little wonder that it is found in the Instr. sg. as an alternative to a vocalic ending (*-e). The original ending of the Instr. pl. in non-Anatolian IE seems to have been *-is (also possibly a postposition!), which yields *-o:is when combined with the thematic vowel. The use of *-bHi was probably optional at first, but the influence of the Instr. sg. led to the development of something like an "instrumental stem" *Noun-bHi, *-(h)is being added to it as a plural (rather than instrumental proper) marker: *-bhi-is > *-bHi:s (simplified to *bhis = *bHi-s in some branches). The Abl./Dat. *-bHjos is obviously *-bHi-os, where *-os is the older ending (= Hittite -as). The Loc. pl. ending *-su also behaves like an originally independent element. In the thematic declension the locative plural ending is *-oisu, i.e. the Loc. sg. *-oi with agglutinated *-su.
 
The lack of symmetry between the sg. and pl. forms of the same cases (not to mention the dual) is not that surprising if we consider the relatively late development of a regular number system in IE. PIE neuters did not have fully-fledged plural forms! their "plurals" were in fact collective nouns used with verbs in the singular (as in Attic Greek, Hittite, and sporadically in Avestan and Vedic). The conventional example is Greek ta zoia trekhei (literally: 'these animals [=this group of animals] runs'). The three numbers have their separate histories and were never combined into a completely transparent system. The non-neuter Acc. pl. *-ns is probably a combination of the Acc. sg. ending *-m with *-s (serving as a plural marker), buit in the genitive or the dative we have unrelated, historically different sg. & pl. forms. (-os : -om; -ei : -os).
 
Piotr
 
 
> I've heard, as an explanation for noun inflection in
> Indo-European languages, that the case endings
were
> once separate words, a kind of adverbs or
> postpositions,
that have merged with the noun. If this
> is true, then why are the case
endings of the same
> case so different from each other in plural
and
> singular (and in different declinations)? Wouldn't
> that have
resulted in a system like in Finnish, where
> case endings are the same in
plural and singular?
> Compare Finnish talo-ssa (locative singular)
and
> talo-i-ssa (locative plural) with the large number of
> forms
in Proto-Indo-European: dative singular  *-ei,
> dative plural
*-bhyos; locative *-i, plural *-su etc.
> It's hard to believe that *-ei
and *-bhyos have
> developed out of the same word. Other
inflecting
> languages, like Finnish or Inuit (Eskimo), have much
>
more "regular" case systems than Indo-European and
> there are no
declensions (several sets of endings for
> the same cases) in these
languages.
>
>    Hakan