Re: -m, -t, -s

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I get it. So it's not
> > nominal
> > -m
> > -s
> > -t
> >
> > vs.
> >
> > verbal
> > -m
> > -s
> > -t
> >
> >
> > but
> >
> > nominal
> > -m
> > -z
> > -d
> >
> > vs.
> > verbal
> > -m
> > -s
> > -t
> >
> > Now that's a whole different kettle of fish.
>
> Indeed - provided the apparent differences between -z and -s and
> between -d and -t are original and not secondary, a fierce debate

I

> wouldn't like to reopen. But even if the two sets could be shown

to

> be absolutely identical, there would hardly be any independent
> reason to pair them off along *phonetic* lines. While it could be
> argued that the neuter can only be third person, there is nothing
> that combines the first person with the accusative, or the second
> person with the nominative, in any obvious way I can think of.
>

You're right, of course. That's where my line of thought stopped too.

The only way out of that would be if the case suffixes had started
as something else.

Torsten