From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 4823
Date: 2000-11-23
>No they can't.
>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. theNo they can't.
>> >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 aThere's no genitive.
>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_??
>Me say:Evidence for this?
>>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 theTo the o-stems nom/acc. in *-om, what else?
>>>>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?
>The lack of accusative *-m in inanimates is often used to demonstrate thatEvidence for this? (Rhetorical question).
>ergativity must have once existed in some early stage of IE (my estimate: c.
>12,000 BCE).
>Miguel:You can call it nonsense, it's still the facts.
>>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.