From: Torsten Pedersen
Message: 5325
Date: 2001-01-05
>however.
>
> Concerning the Etruscan genitive in /-n/, I said:
> > > It would appear to correlate best with Mid IE *-am (IE *-om).
>
> Torsten:
> >Why not Finno-Ugric gen. -n (or am I disturbing your circles?)?
>
> Circles? I don't make circles. >:( How do you mean? You are right
> I'm almost certain that it relates to Uralic too. However,Etruscan /-n/
> points to both *-n AND *-m and so I can't be too sure whether thesuspect it
> IndoTyrrhenian ending should be reconstructed as *-am or *-an. I
> was mainly a "partitive" case ending since *-óm is given a strictlyplural
> sense in IE from early on. Note that it's likely, based on themessiness of
> IE plural declension, that the language only worked out plural caseendings
> relatively late in its development. This leaves us to ponder whatsort of
> "singular" origin underlies *-óm.now which
>
> I arrive at IndoTyr *-an instead of *-am somewhat arbitrarily for
> I indeed feel is related to the Uralic genitive in *-n. I concludeso far
> that the change from *-an to *-am occured some time inIndoEuropean's line
> between 7000 to 4000 BCE and can be easily explained as a confusionwith the
> accusative case ending in *-m, which is certainly just as ancient(Uralic
> *-m, Etruscan /-n, -ni/, IE *-m). Some authors make mention of anIE
> connection between genitive *-óm and accusative *-m purely onphonetic
> grounds, something that might easily be done with Etruscan as well,but this
> is total hogwash in a grammatical context.I was just quoting Archimedes answer to the Roman soldier: Noli
>
> - gLeN
>
>