[tied] Re: Accusative was allative

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, mcv@... wrote:

> 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;

I get that.

>or

>Bla-bla. That I say => I say that bla-bla

I get that


).

>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".

I get that, but it's the opposite direction, so not relevant.

>Etcetera.

Aha. Could you come up with an actual live example of

>The-man which I-see => The-man-ACC I-see.

because I don't get it?


Torsten