Aquila:
>There is a theory that the IE genitive marker e(s) and the uralic
>ablative marker -ta originated from a steppe ablative marker -ta.
I don't subscribe to that theory. I do think that Proto-Steppe *-t
became IndoEuropean *s while remaining *t in Uralic though, which
is a correlation we see in the 2ps ending (IE *-s(-i) // Ur *-tV),
the plural (IE *-es // Ur *-t) and the aorist (IE *-s- // Ur *-ta).
>The theory is further connected to the theory that steppe t became
>s in IE, so that -ta became -s after this shift and the zero-grade
>period.
No, I don't think this is possible. If we say for a moment that
*ta operated as a genitive instead of an ablative (a small
distinction, I suppose), the expected IE form should be *-od...
which is the _ablative_ that is reconstructed. If PSteppe *t was
in final position here rather than terminating in a vowel, we'd
expect **-s, due to penultimate accentuation, not *-os. This *-s,
in fact, is the result we see with the 2ps, because here, *t _was_
in final position. To obtain *-os with accent, based on the pen.
accent rule, we'd need earlier *-a-sV, implying that in fact, the
sibilant was never final and therefore that it can't derive from
a dental stop! In other words, the *s of the IE genitive should
be found in Uralic as *s as well.
Both possibilities seem to me to deny a connection between the
Uralic ablative and the IE genitive. Plus afterall, connecting
two ablatives together (as per my theory) is far less assumptive
and more efficient than trying desperately and halfhazardly to
connect a genitive with an ablative merely because of a t/s
correspondance we see elsewhere. Too many assumptions! What firm
basis do we have for assuming that the t/s correspondance occurs
between an ablative and a genitive when the two ablatives can be
connected anyways?? Aquila, you're trying too hard.
The IE genitive *-os should be expected to correlate with Uralic
**sV if it can, but I still haven't seen such an ending or particle.
However, I wonder where the *s of *-s-na > /-ssa/ comes from in
the Finnish inessive and whether this is reconstructed in Uralic
itself. Interestingly, we have these elements *-s- (describing
an internal relationship) and *-l- (describing an external
relationship) which look eerily similar to the Etruscan case
endings in /s/ and /l/ as well as the traces found in IE.
>According to this theory the ablative gradually developed into a
>genitive, but without loosing its former functions all together.
It's more efficient to assume that the ablative became the ablative.
>As for the ending -ed, this is connected with another UR ablative
>ending, maybe the same as you find in the finnish abessive -tta.
That's just ridiculous. There's only one Uralic ablative *-ta.
Why are you now making up stuff? Your theory is full of untested
gaps so why not give it a rest?
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail