Jens:
>The theory of yours that the nominative marker is a rudimentary
>variant of the nom.sg.masc. demonstrative pronoun *so is not
>substantiated all that well.
First, whatever lame explanations, **z fails because it is based on
nothing but empty faith. That fact needs to addressed. Logically,
you are to discard your solution and accept mine >:)
Second, by saying "the meaning of *so is such that it could
perhaps be used as a definite article (as it was later in some of the
branches", you comittently admit that my solution is based on that
which is real and attested (in stark contrast to **z).
However imperfect my solution, it is the better one. Adapt.
After accepting this, you may continue reading...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You choose to continue on in denial and attack with "[...] there is little
reason such definiteness should exist only in the nominative, and that
other cases should not form definite forms with the corresponding
cases of the stem *to- which would have been the thing to use if the
alleged use of *so made good sense."
The use of *so would've been originally restricted to an honorific use
in the exact same way we use "the" in English -- eg. THE Mr Brown.
It's use as an optional honorific marker for nouns describing humans
and deities started in IndoTyrrhenian as attested in Etruscan (/Tin-s'/
"Jupiter", /Fuflun-s/ "Bacchus", /nefti-s/ "grandson", /tiu-s/ "moon",
/usil-s/ "sun", etc, etc). These forms are also found without /-s/.
Its lack of use in weak cases is not problematic. Non-focus nouns of a
phrase (those that are neither subject, object, agent, nor patient) are
unmarked for definiteness because they are not center stage. These
non-focus nouns are marked in _weak_ cases where we coincidentally
don't find *-s here. A realworld example: Basque /etxeko andrea/ "the
lady of THE house", not **/etxeko-a andrea/.
Since the accusative, the only other strong case besides the nom.,
was ALREADY marked for definiteness (*-m is definite and *-od is
indefinite), *so helped out in the animate nominative. The inanimate
was not marked in the acc. because it could not be the subject of a
sentence, as attested in Anatolian. Therefore there was no point in
marking the nominative. Thus *-t& had only marginal use in
pronominals (> *-d) to provide gender contrast (*kWis/*kWid).
In fact, the very existence of *-s/*-d contrast cements my solution
as virtually uncontestable so your arguements are needlessly contrary
and quaint. You MUST accept this as the best solution and reject
your imaginary sibilant.
>And if a feminine *se-h2 > *sah2 existed too, why was the very same
>rudimentary form of *so, i.e. *-s, also used as the nominative marker of
>feminines?
Common IE had not yet developed the feminine gender, a gender
"hybrid" combining elements of both the animate and inanimate. The
famous Latin example of /agricola/ "farmer" proves this. So the above
is quaint diversion. If you don't understood simple IE grammar, your
rebuttals will fail to be persuasive.
It's time to join the 21st century, Mr Rasmussen.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail