Re: [tied] Beekes and the animate nominative *-s

>Marc V:
>>Beekes did notice the animate meaning of the nominative -s originally
>>AFAIR. Why not 1) -s = genitive, 2) also used for animate ergative, 3) =
>>nominative (sing. & plural)?
>
>You're confusing my brain, which ain't hard to do, btw :) Maybe you could
>demonstrate a sentence pattern of some kind (like: "subject-ABS object-ERG
>verb"

Why not ergative>nominative = actor, and absolute>accusative = recipient?
eg, "my killing him" (genitive=ergative verb object=absolute) developed into
"I kill him" (nominative verb accusative).

>) and show how this can evolve in a semantically happy way over time,
>from the ergative stage to the nominative stage, as you suggest. You still
>haven't given an explanation on how one can derive two or three endings of
>very different functions (*-s, *-es, *-és) from a single proto-ending (*-s)
>without practicing alchemy on the side. :P Why do you insist on a common
>origin for them all? They may not have one.

Probably you're right. I don't insist on it. I'm just asking.

>I do agree that at some faraway stage of pre-IE there existed an ergative
>case. However, I am under the impression that the accusative *-m is its
>descendent, not the nominative *-s. - gLeN

Isn't the absolute=accusative is the usual recipient (often inanimate), &
the ergative=nominative is usual actor (often animate)?

Marc