Re: [tied] Re: -i, -u

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:16:38 +0000, johnsensverre
<johnsensverre@...> wrote:

>> > 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?

The parallel, I suppose, is with progressives of the type E.
a-changing, Fr. en chantant, We. yn dysgu.

If we take PIE -i as a locative ending and translate it as
"in", the present tense forms in -i may be taken as
parallel. Except that the -i is appended to the personal
ending, not to the verb (c.q. verbal noun), which is odd.


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