Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o

On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:29:26 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
>
>[Glen, on the locative:]
>>It doesn't conform to the other automatic
>> declensional patterns and accentuation.
>
>That is correct. That's why I have suggested an enclitic, as opposed
>to a desinence. Enclitics move the accent to the position before
>them, which explains the constant stem-final accent of the locative
>and may also explain the absence of an overt ending if the original
>form consisted of a short vowel which would be deleted when not
>accented. If it were a desinence and the locative were a normal weak
>case, the accent should move onto the vowel of the desinence in
>hysterodynamic paradigms (as 'father'), which it does not do.

It does. That's the origin of the dative case out of an
earlier general dative/locative.

Hysterodynamic nouns are usually animate, so the ending *-é
(*-é-i) became associated with dative function, while
proterodynamic (inanimate) *-0 (*-i) became associated with
locative use.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...