From: Rob
Message: 36109
Date: 2005-02-02
> > I also forgot to mention something. What do you (and others)So, then, the origin of the 3sg verb ending is not a demonstrative,
> >think of the possibility that the 3sg verbal inflection is in fact
> >an agent-noun formation of this type? That is, the *-t 3sg suffix
> >is the same as the *-t nomen agentis suffix?
> >
> > - Rob
>
> I think that historically, the -tó of the 3sg present and of the
> nomen agentis, are the same.
>
> I also think that a nomen agentis is the primary usage.
> But let us look at pH2-tó. In my view, this meantYes, I agree that the abstract noun formation in -ti is related.
> primarily 'feeder' (nomen agentis). And, if precedent had been
> followed, 'food' would be pH2-t-yé -> pH2-tí, 'that which is
> related to a feeder' (abstract noun).
> "[something] fed".This brings up an interesting question. The word for "night",
> Is 'food' a collective? In some contexts it is, in others not.This is very true.
>
> But also, a 'feeder' can be 'food'. What 'feeds' is 'food'.
> Who 'feeds' is 'feeder'.
>
> As we know, there is a lot of overlap in the meanings of these
> two forms.
> Jens, are you possibly asking for a sophistication andTo be fair, was the human mind any less sophisticated 6,000 years ago?
> consistency that was not there in the earliest language?