Re: [tied] Re: Accusative was allative

tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, mcv@... wrote:
> > I think accusative *-m comes from, as you write above, a
> <relative suffix>, in fact from a relative pronoun in the oblique case.
> >
> > The available constructions would have initially been something
> like the following:
> >
> > A. <unmarked> [man I-see] "I see (a) man"
> > B. <marked> [man whom I-see] "The man that I see"
> >
> > (B) was then reinterpreted as [man-whom I-see], i.e. [man-ACC I-
> see], denoting a definite object: "I see the man". This is still
> the
> function of the *m-accusative in Uralic and Altaic. In PIE, the
> construction with *-m completely replaced the unmarked
> construction
> (A), at least for animates.
> >
>
> I don't get it. A must be a sentence and B a noun phrase. Are you
> saying that a noun phrase was reinterpreted as a sentence?

Yes. The-man which I-see => The-man-ACC I-see. In an (S)OV language such a development would be entirely unsurprising.

Similar developments can be seen all the time. E.g. the transition of a demonstrative into a relative/subordinative particle (The house that I see <== The house. That I see; or Bla-bla. That I say => I say that bla-bla). A development from case marker to relative clause marker can be seen in the Basque genitive -en: ikusten duda-en gizona "the man of my-seeing = the man which I see". Etcetera.

--
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal