--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> I don't follow the argument either. The agglutination of *-en is
certainly
> post-Balto-Slavic. I can't see the relevance to whether PBS
already had
> definite adjectives or not.
I agree. What was probably ment is that the fusion obviously
postdates the agglutination of *-én; besides, in archaic Lithuanian
the pronoun sometimes precedes the adjective in what definitely (pun
not intended) looks like a "syntactic" definite adjective (in
normalized transcription: _pajoprasto_ = _paparastojo_ 'simple Gsg
def'), so we can obviously speak of the Balto-Slavic definite
adjectives as a syntactical -- not yet morphological -- phenomenon
only; and in that case its uniqueness (= common Balto-Slavic
innovation) can be questioned (see below).
> The indefinite adjectives in Lithuanian have a pronominal form in
the
> dative/locative (masc. o-stem -am(-e) instead of nominal -ui/-0(-
e)). In
> the definite, Loc. *-am-jam-e gives -ajame (loc.pl. -uos-juos-e >
> -uosiuose), proving that the univerbation of the definite forms
precedes
> the agglutation of -e(n).
Wrong. Archaic Lithuanian forms (in normalized transcription:
_naujamé,jame_ 'in the New (Testament)', _didimé,jime_ 'on Great
(=Moundy) (Thursday)', _tikrojé,joje_ 'in the true (thought)',
_senuose,juose,_ 'in the old (scriptures)'...) unequivocally point to
the contrary. Some archaic Lithuanian forms and dialectal relics
(_geruojám_ 'good (Dsg def)') also point to the nominal paradigm of
both the indefinite and definite adjectives.
> >2) "definite adjectives" appear in Avestan as well but were not
> >continued there
>
> Doesn't sound familiar.
Simply because the Beekes' "grammar is a historical phonology and
morphology, it gives no syntax". What is probably meant is the
syntactic constructions like _s^yaoTana:is^ ya:is^
vahis^ta:is^_ 'with the best deeds (lit. 'deeds-IPl which-IPl best-
IPl'); archaic Lithuanian sometimes prefers prepositional pronouns as
well (see above).
Sergei