[tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 02:48:16 +0000, Richard Wordingham
> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> >In Chickasaw, the possessor is unmarked,
> >and both the antigenitive and other case markings may be attached
> >to
> >the possession. I think the same applies to Basque, but I could
> >be wrong.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'antigenitive', but in Basque,
> the construction is:
>
> otsoaren begia "the wolf's eye" (absolutive)
> otsoaren begiak "the wolf's eye" (ergative)
> otsoaren begiaren "of the wolf's eye" (genitive)
> otsoaren begiari "to the wolf's eye" (dative)
> otsoaren begian "in the wolf's eye" (locative)
> etc.
>
> These are all definite forms. They can be abbreviated as:
>
> otsoarena
> otsoarenak
> ostsoarenaren
> otsoarenari
> otsoarenean
>
> if it's clear from context what the possessum is.

So I'm wrong about Basque. I was trying to interpret the
sentence, 'My language O which has a construct case answers it by
stacking both construct case and the other case on the noun, à la
Basque.' The 'à la Basque' obviously refers to the abbreviated
forms above.

> >It occurred to me that tatpurushas might be examples. When the
> >first element is a thematic stem, why does the thematic vowel
> >surface as -o- rather than as -e-?
>
> Can you tell the difference in Sanskrit?

Greek.

Richard.