Re: [tied] Etruscan and Nakh

> Etr. IE
> -----------------------------------------
> nominative [unmarked] [unmarked] (inanimate)
> honorific -s (male deities) *-s (animate nominative)
> accusative -n (pronominal) *-m
> s-genitive -sa *-és
> l-genitive -al (Anatolian: Hittite/Lydian)
> locative -thi *dhi
> locative -pi *bhi
>
>Note that -s appears to have originally had an "honorific" meaning based on
>both IE and Etruscan. Internally in IE, one can arrive easily at the origin
>of the animate nominative *-s. It can only derive from *se, the
>demonstrative meaning "this, that, the" coincidently used for _animate_
>nouns (later, masculine-feminine nouns). An "honorific" usage of definite
>articles is seen in English itself: "Is that _the_ Patrick Swayze?! Where's
>my camera! Boy, would I like to be _his_ underwear...". Nothing strange
>about honorific articles.
>
>Further, while Etruscan generally leaves the nomino-accusative of nouns
>unmarked as with IE's inanimate nouns, /-s/ is still optionally attached to
>male gods. We find /Tin/ as well as /Tins/, for example. The genitive of
>/Tin/ is found as /Tinas/ (/Tinas clenar/ "Jupiter's sons"), not /Tins/
>(nomino-accusative). So put a lid on it, will ya? :P

AFAIR, Beekes believes the nominative (= old ergative?) -s could derive from
genitive -s. Many languages use the genitive for expressing the actor in
passive sentences (eg, German "von") or in ergative languages. Could that be
a possible explanation IYO?

Marc