Re: Nominative: A hybrid view

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
> Rob:
> >Given the evidence, one should at least accept that PIE and
> >Proto-Uralic inherited a case form -m from their parent language.
>
> Of course, we should. Since both language groups insist on using
> *-m as an accusative marker... then that means that it's an
> accusative marker until you prove otherwise. Efficiency of thought
> wins, you lose.
>
> You're using the same troubling pseudo-arguement that Jens
> likes employing: "We don't know that it WASN'T true so there-
> fore we should consider it being true."
>
> Uh, no, we shouldn't.
> I'm not going to waste my time with that kind of rebuttal.
>
>
> >If I may ask, do you have any examples of such words in Etruscan?
>
> I offer /maris'/ "boy", /nefis'/ "grandson", /Tins'/ "Jupiter". It

is

> often written as a palatal /s'/.
>
>
> >What's interesting to note is that the Etruscan genitive is also

in -s(i).

>
> What's also interesting is that Uralic uses *sa for 3ps. The same
> pronoun pops up in EskimoAleut. What's also interesting is that
> Uralic doesn't have a sigmatic nominative nor a sigmatic genitive.
>
>
> >Yes, the dimorphia of which you speak certainly seems to be

a "hole"

> >in my theory. And admittedly, I have no satisfactory explanation

of

> >it at this time. I suggested two possibilities, however: one is

that

> >the distinction was caused by a difference in intonation, to

indicate

> >which case was used; or, that the -os genitive in root nouns was
> >borrowed from the "thematic" class.
>
> Both requiring more assumption on top of an already assumptive
> theory. You need something more substantial to cover that hole.
>
>
> >The inanimate is not completely unmarked for the nominative. It
> >takes the same ending as the accusative.
>
> Inanimates take no ending at all for the accusative, except in
> pronominals like *kWi-d.
>
>
> >However, this leaves two questions:
> >
> >1. Why were only animates marked by a demonstrative?
> >2. Why would later alleged inanimate demonstrative *to (earlier
> >*ta ?) be reduplicated to form *toto > *tot& > *tod?
>
> Well, simple. The stage when IE adopted the nominative was
> not analytic. Quite un-analytic.
>
> The object of an action was once marked for definiteness by
> different case endings, either the accusative (definite) or the
> partitive (indefinite). The subject lacked case marking. So to
> convey definiteness here, a demonstrative was needed. Now
> this early demonstrative *s& was only used for subjects and
> since subjects were only animate, inanimates were never
> marked by *s&. Even when inanimates were used in ergative
> sentences, inanimate agents were in the weak case (not
> nominative, nor accusative). Nouns in weak cases were not
> marked for definiteness at all because they were not in the
> primary sphere of an action (not being subject nor direct
> object).
>
>
> >They acquired different meanings in others (e.g. Latin, if one

takes "suus,

> >-a, -um" 'his/her/its/their (own)' as deriving
> >from *so).
>
> No, this is from a reflexive pronoun, *su: (also *swe). We all
> know it doesn't derive from *so.
>
>
> - gLeN
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail