--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "babel1800" <babel1800@...> wrote:
> Some plural verbal endings seem to be formed by the infixation or
> suffixation of -n:
>
> 1 sg -m 1 pl -men (cf. greek)
> 3 sg -t 3 pl -nt
>
> Anyone who would like to comment?
Just the other day I was looking at verbal endings and it occured to
me that there are several languages that have -m (or -n in some
languages) and -s where others don't. For instance there's a dual
ending that some languages would point to -ta but others to -tam.
These can't be person markers (at least not for subject agreement)
because the endings already encode that elsewhere.
Perhaps the answer harks back to the ergative stage of PIE. It seems
that at this stage -m marked the absolutive but -s/-d
(animate/inanimate) marked the absolutive. If this is true then one
wonders if the verb also encoded agreement with the case of the
subject. As PIE changed to an accusative language the case agreement
may have been lost, since the subject would always be in the
nominative (except those relic areas where ergative structures were
retained). Thus these final -m and -s suffixes are relics of verbal
case agreement.
Thoughts?