Miguel stated:
>PIE had adjective-forming suffixes (such as *-io-, *-ro- or indeed
>[o-grade +]*-o-), so the category of "adjective" must have been a
>meaningful one at some level.
Again, these "adjective-forming" suffixes of yours can also be seen as
"noun-forming" suffixes.
>As to the relationship between adjectives and the genitive, cf. the
> >Anatolian adjective forming suffixes Hitt. -ala-, Cun. Luw. -assi-. >In
>fact, Luwian (and Lydian) lack a genitive as such, and the >equivalent of
>genitive constructions are made by affixing -assi- + >case ending (Lyd.
>-li-) to any noun.
And? The Anatolian "adjective-forming suffixes" can just as well be seen as
primarily genitive endings that were secondarily used to create adjectives.
I think we could validly explain this instance of -assi- + case ending as a
simple case of redundant genitive (much like English's redundant negative in
"She ain't no lady"). However, I don't comprehend how we might credibly
explain this formation if -assi- is to be truely viewed solely as an
adjective formant. Why should the genitive need an adjective suffix to
create a declined _noun_?? Why? I'll tell ya why. Because the difference
between the IE noun and the IE adjective was blurry and thus these suffixes
were used for both noun and adjective. Nouns and adjectives are the same
thing.
Ironically, your example and your very explanation of -assi-, where this
so-called _adjective_ forming suffix connects to a _noun_ case ending, plays
perfectly into my hands.
Me say:
>The gen.pl. *-om is also found in Etruscan as /-un/ and is therefore >quite
>archaic.
Miguel:
>Evidence for this? AFAIK, the Etr. gen.pl. ending is -ras (pl. *-ra-
>+ gen. *-si).
I didn't say that this was the Etruscan genitive _plural_. It is simply a
genitive singular. It is used only in IE as an exclusively plural case
ending.
Bomhard states: "Etruscan also had an archaic genitive in -n (-an, -un),
which corresponds to the Indo-European genitive plural in *-om (also with
long vowel: *-o:m < *-o-om)."
>>>It is interesting, however, that only the o-stem neuters have the
>>>accusative *-m marker, which would make some sense if the o-stems >>>were
>>>indeed originally definite (substantivized) adjectives.
>>
>>I believe you're talking about *-om, the genitive plural, again.
>
>No, I'm talking about the neutr.sg.
Well then. I was under the impression that inanimate nouns did not use *-m
as accusative at all... I was under the impression that inanimate nouns had
a single nomino-accusative case. So what exactly are you refering to? Do you
have examples? This sounds like another really late IE phenom that I doubt
is attributable to the IndoAnatolian stage.
The lack of accusative *-m in inanimates is often used to demonstrate that
ergativity must have once existed in some early stage of IE (my estimate: c.
12,000 BCE). What it demonstrates in a more immediate stage of preIE is that
the inanimate noun was never used as an agent (later subject, declined with
animate nominative *-s), only as patient (later object, declined as animate
accusative *-m or unmarked inanimate nominoaccusative). It's a logical rule
necessitating circumventive phrasal structures to avoid inanimate agents.
Long story.
Miguel:
>You should have a look at the history of Germanic and Slavic
>adjectives. For example, Macedonian <beliot dom> ("the white >house"), has
>a definite article <-ot> (ultimately from PIE *to[s]) >added to a formerly
>definite adjective <beli> (< *be^lyjI),
Right, this is exactly the nonsense that I'm pointing out here. Why is a
definite adjective being re-affixed with definite endings in so many various
IE languages and in so many manners as you state?? If you were correct that
IE had "definite" adjectives (which you aren't), we shouldn't see this
affixation in such abundance and we should see these adjectives being used
exclusively as definite adjectives in some IE language or another.
I'm not arguing against the likelihood that articles can be affixed to nouns
(like in Swedish for example or Basque). I know they can be. The point is
that IE didn't have "definite" adjectives as opposed to "indefinite" ones.
You haven't presented a real case to make me believe this so far.
>All I'm saying is that *bhe:los itself
>might once have been a definite adjective made by affixing the
>pronominal element *-os (apparently with vrddhi) to the
>nominal/adjectival root *bhel.
This is an unnecessary assumption (as is your belief in IE adjectives). Two
assumptions don't make a right :)
- gLeN
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com