Re: -i, -u

> > The primary verb suffix -i may very well be _the same_ suffix as
> in
> > the locative, but that doesn't mean that it originally had a
> locative
> > sense. The loc. -i may also originate from a "hic et nunc"-

meaning.

> >
>
> In what sense is "hic et nunc" not locative?

I think I see your point, but I believe that would be splitting
hairs. My point was, that even if the primary verb -i is the same as
the locative -i, it doesn't follow that the "primary verb" must have
been some sort of a gerund or noun. The -i was apparantly some sort
of an enclitic adverb/postposition or whatever, and I can't see why
that requires the preceding word to be a noun. Why couldn't the
preceding word have been a verbal?

Sverre