Re: [tied] Talking of locatives [Was: Some thoughts...]

> From: Piotr Gasiorowski [mailto:gpiotr@...]

...

> Another interesting thing about adverbialised locatives is
> that they can
> form their own derivatives. In thematic "adjectives of appurtenance"
> derived from locatives in *-i, an intrusive [n] may fill in
> the expected
> hiatus...
> One example (from an article by Jens) is *g^Heimer-i[n]-o- from
> *g^Heimen(-i) with nasal dissimilation (Gk. kHeimerinos, Lat.
> hi:bernus), but also e.g. Gk. nukterinos (cf. nukto:r 'by
> night') = Lat
> nocturnus, Gk. perusinos < *per-ut-i[n]-o-, and, as I have suggested
> before, *dek^si[n]o- 'righ(-hand)' (in Indo-Iranian and
> Balto-Slavic),
> which can be derived from *dek^si 'on the right side',
> connectible with
> *dek^-es- 'virtue, the RIGHT thing to do'.

Does that mean that the Balto-Slavic "suffix of appurtenance" *-ina- has
emerged as a generalization of "the locative *-i plus the hiatus-filler [n]
plus the thematic *o" sequence? Is it possible that another Balto-Slavic
"suffix of appurtenance" -- *-i(j)a- -- is actually a generalization of the
same sequence without a hiatus-filler (or, rather, with [j] acting as a
hiatus-filler)?

Sergei