[tied] Re: -i, -u

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

> >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.

Yes, I understand that that was Torsten's point, but I still can't
see why this problem needs to arise. A verbal noun such as English a-
changing is structurally and not to mention syntactically not a
finite verb, in contrast to the IE verbs with the primary endings.
That was why I tried to put emphasis on the fact that the suffix -i
originally wasn't a "locative ending", but a hic-et-nunc enclitic,
which developed into a more specific locative sense in the noun, but
retained the more original meaning in the primary verb ending. In
other words, not: locative -i -> PE -i, but rather: Hic-et-nunc -i ->
1. Locative. 2.PE.

Sverre