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

Peter:

>Patanjali quotes the following for sanskrit (removing the sandhi for
>clarity):
> iha ahis srptas = there snake (nom sing) crept (masc nom sing)
> iha ahina: srptam = there by a snake (instr) it was crept (neut nom
>sing)
> idam ahes srptam = there of a snake (gen) it was crept (neut nom
>sing) There is apparently no difference in meaning.

I didn't say that the sentence structure is impossible. Very possible in
fact. I was skeptical about how this could explain the IE endings
specifically. I would like to see how, with IE examples only, how this can
explain the deceptively similar *s-endings that I feel are not related at
all. Explain the different stages of pre-IE from one semantic step to the
next. Explain the accent difference, the vowel difference, the semantic
difference. I want it _all_ explained.

>Pace Glen, there are a goodly number of scholars who believe this is
>possible. Schmalstieg and various others I can't be bothered >looking up.
>Beekes is not alone.

No, he wouldn't be. Ruhlen's not alone either. My contention primarily stems
from the theory not making clear sense, not that Beekes says it.

>There is even a theory (published in JIES) that neuters in -om >derived
>from the instrumental, while animates in -s derived from the >genitive.

... And this still doesn't explain to me how animates are associated with
*-s and inanimates with *-om. ?? It's a really loose idea. Are theories
nowadays no longer required to make full sense?

- gLeN

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com