Re: [tied] Qualitative ablaut - case as closed as a black hole is b

On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:29:38 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>>1) The Etruscan s-genitive can confidently be reconstructed as *-si.
>
>It doesn't have to be reconstructed. This genitive is attested in written
>Etruscan (and Lemnian, if I recall).

You must mean the dative in -si (e.g. <mini spuriaza teithurnas
muluvanice al$aianasi> "Spuriaza Teithurnas gave me to Alsaiana").

>>To quote Beekes & v.d. Meer:
>>"An _ablative_ was formed by adding the gen. -s to the genitive.
>
>What on earth are you saying?

I'm talking about the ablative, e.g. TLE 321:
<thanchvil tarnai
an: farthnache: marces: tarnes: ramthesc: chaireals
larth: tetnies
an: farthnache arntheals: tetnis: ramthesc: vi$naial$>

"Thanchvil Tarnai; she was born out of Marce Tarna and Ramtha Chaire.
Larth Tetnies; he was born out of Arnth Tetnis and Ramtha Visnaia."

>/Larthalisa/ means "from that which is of
>Larth's", which is simply a genitive of a genitive, period.

That would be <Larthalisla>, which can be analyzed as:
Larth (a name)
-al (genitive)
-is(a) (the article)
-la (genitive)

Literally: "Of that of Larth". <Larthalisa> means "that of Larth".

>I don't understand why the genitive must be doubled before it can acquire an
>ablative. Sounds like looniness again.

That's just the way the Etruscans made their ablatives.

>>The last two forms (ablative and dative) are easily understood if the
>>genitives in -s and -l were originally adjectives [...]" >(translation
>>mine).
>
>The endings were adjectives?? I'm sure you

R.S.P. Beekes & L.B. van der Meer, actually.

>mean that they were "adjectival endings".

I don't think so: "De beide laatste vormen (ablativus en dativus) zijn
gemakkelijk te begrijpen als de genitivi op -s en -l oorspronkelijk
adjectiva waren (dus niet "van de school" maar "schools")." So, the
_genitives_ were originally _adjectives_ (not just the endings, the
whole thing).

>Your *tot (or *tod, if you like) is simply from MidIE inanimate
>demonstrative *ta. It has little to do with a long-lost ergative case.

Did I claim that?

>Demonstratives in *s- are seen outside IndoTyrrhenian (cf. Uralic) so, to
>claim that *twa: > *so is severly misguided.

In case you haven't noticed, the *so ~ *to forms are suppletive.
There's nothing remotely comparable in Uralic.

>I haven't a clue where you got **-a: from (Sumerian /-e/ perhaps??).

I'd say **a: was a deictic particle. Nothing to do with the ergative.

What I am claiming is that the ancient ergative may have been *-u (pl.
*-at-u).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...