Alwin:
>The creation of the nominative in *-s can be explained
>as we assume an older ergative system in (pre)PIE.
No, I can't "assume" this. This explains nothing. It can't
explain the pronominal inanimate *-d properly. (And please
spare me some absurd attempt at haphazardly connecting
it with the ablative or some other ennui.) I've heard all this
a billion and one times before but everybody's talking
through their hat and not giving convincing justification
for their viewpoints (or should I say "religions").
>It is likely that this ergative case was the same as the genitive case,
>which had the ending *-s.
It's only likely if you ignore the big giant fact that the
nominative (*-s never with accent) and genitive endings
(*-os with accent for athematics) _aren't_ the same. It's
a nice dream but so far this theory has no merit until the
assertions can be backed up with substance.
PS: I don't deny some ergativity in preIE, but I do object
to connecting the genitive and nominative together
as a single case. Explain *-d properly and then I'll give
you a candy.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail