Re: som?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

> >
> > tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > I know of course that the demonstrative *so was an uninflected
> > particle. Because if it weren't, then back in the good old days
> > where PIE didn't have so many cases, it would have had an
> accusative
> > *som.
> >
> > Hm!
> >
> > I wonder if it's outside the limits of the possible that PIE
> > *som "the same" has changed its semantics from "that one"

(acc.),

> eg
> > as a consequence of its use in reflexive statements?
> >
> > Then, poor *so, after having had its accusative hijacked for

other

> > purposes would have had no other option but to enter in a
> suppletive
> > paradigm with *to-
> >
> >

And one reason why it came to mean "one" would be that *som was also
gen.pl. (whence derived Engl 'some'), confirming my suspicion that
gen.pl. is derived from acc.sg.

Torsten