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

>From: enlil@...
>
>Torsten:
> > Ah, nostalgia. I'm reminded of myself your age: young, talented,
> > dogmatic. I'm glad you havent't entered politics.
>
>I won't enter politics as long as you don't enter spelling bees <:O
>By the way, would all Americans please stop being so Republican-loving,
>born-again pseudo-Christians and smoke more pot like us Canadians. Maybe
>it would finally lower your per-capita murder rates. Thanx a bunch ;P
>
>
> > Interesting that you should say that, since I just discovered at
> > least one IE language has possesive suffixes, namely Hittite.

I am not sure yu could call them suffixes. True, they do come at the end of
the word, but other than that they do not behave as suffixes. They take the
same case as the word they modify

For instance:

atti-mi
attis-mis

and so on. They behave just like any other adjective. The only difference
appears to be an orthographic one. To call it a suffix, one would not expect
both the word and word suffixed to take case endings.

>And considering that Hittite possessive suffixes are unrelatable to
>the rest of IE and since they can be explained without theorizing any
>in IE itself, your pointless point is pointlessly pointless in a
>pointless manner of speaking. As I said earlier, the fact that the
>non-indicative lacks any locative marker of any kind and the fact
>that there is nothing less verbal about the n-ind. than the ind. means
>that you're, as is your wonderfully offbeat character, the product
>of out-of-control imagination. There is no factual base to begin with
>to justify your ideas no matter how interesting they are. I just don't
>see it.
>
>
>= gLeN
>