Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Marked nominative

On Sat, 17 May 2003, Glen Gordon wrote:

>
> Jens:
>
> >If the whole form *so is identical with the nominative marker and so
> >fulfils that function too, it is understandable that there is no further
> >"ending" sitting on the end of the form.
>
> No. You're on the wrong path. Let me guide you back.

This was actually meant as a concession, a point where I figured I could
accept your point of view to begin with. *I* do not insist upon it.

>
> The reason why *so has no ending is also because it was undeclinable.
> It was a particle without case ending of any kind. To put a case
> ending on it would be sacriledge.
>
> In contrast, as I've repeatedly said, *to- was clearly declined. It was
> coincidently given the inanimate ending to boot. I think that the
> major factor here is declinability that caused the lop-sided system
> we see.
>
> Regardless, this doesn't change the obvious conclusion that *-s and
> *-d must derive from *so- and *to- and my declinability arguement
> is justified because it is what we see...
>
> So where is the problem? This is much different from merely
> assuming that a single *o indicates voicing. This is a much more
> obscure conclusion with many other probabilities of somewhat
> equal value that are being ignored.
>
> On the other hand, there is no other explanation for the origin of
> *-s versus *-d except via *so- and *to-.

I am willing to learn. Would you be so kind as to mention, say, six out of
the "many other probabilities of somewhat equal value that are being
ignored" under my theory? I would like to see if I should have preferred
one of those.

Perhaps we could then also improve on the weak spots of your theory. It
is distinctly unsatisfactory that the common stem of the nom.sg. masc. and
fem. is an uninflected particle used in nominative function, while the
nom.-acc.sg. case ending of the neuter is a demonstrative stem using
itself as a desinence in one of its forms. What would be the rationale of
that? What case function of <house> could be expressed by <house house>?
Are the many alternatives you say I have overlooked really all inferior to
that?

Jens