[tied] Re: Thematic vowel etc - correction

> >
> >Miguel was referring to the two first ones.
>
> I was referring to the Proto-Germanic paradigms, as
> illustrated by Gothic:
> >I was referring to the
> >last one. But the phenomenon of "taking on the pronominal ending"
> >(I've never understood why when I saw that in textbooks; why

would a

> >noun or adjective want to do that?) is continuing from 1) to 2)

and

> >from 2) to 3).

Thank you for the information. Unfortunately it doesn't include NPs
beginning with adjectives, which was what I was talking about.

>
> Lithuanian also takes a pronominal ending in the dat.sg. of
> adjectives, just like Germanic.
>

in definite NP's, indefinite ones, or those that begin with an
adjective?

> The Old Dutch (OLF) paradigms were:
>
> (strong:)
>
> m. n. f.
> N blint blint blint
> A blindan blint blinda
> G blindes blindes blindero
> D blindin blindin blindero
>
> (weak:)
>
> m. n. f.
> N blindo blinda blinda
> A blindon blinda blindon, blinda
> G blindin blindin blindon
> D blindin blindin blindon
>
> In modern Dutch, the forms are:
>
> definite:
> m. n. f. pl.
> blinde blinde blinde blinde
>
> indefinite
> m. n. f. pl.
> blinde blind blinde blinde
>
> The only form without -e is the neuter indefinite.
>

Yes, that how I tried to speak it too. Still no info on adjective-
first NP's. Seems the subject is neglected by historical linguists.
Funny thing is, we were taught _three_ sets of endings for German
adjectives, but all of historical-linguistdom behaves as if there
only two.

Torsten