[tied] Re: The Hoffmann suffix

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:29:01 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >Sanskrit has an endingless locative; without the -i we would get
> >*-en > -*er. Voilà, locative in -er.
>
> No, the -i has nothing to do with it. The Vedic locative is
> usually udán.
>
> Even if it were *udár, which it isn't, that wouldn't make
> *-er a locative ending. The locative ending is -0; *-en,
> *-r. is part of the stem.

I didn't say -er was a locative ending. I said that the paradigm
would end up with a locative in -r. Just as it has (supposedly) a
nominative in -r. In other words, the locative ending in -0 would
make an -n-stem locative end in -r. This locative of stative
sentences would then be reinterpreted as a nominative.

> Now the Germanic pronominal locatives in -r are a different
> matter. There, the *-n- (*-r) is not part of the stem, so
> the suffix *-r may well be an old fossilized locative
> ending, or, which I prefer, the adposition *(h1)en "in"
> agglutinated at a very early stage.
>

Is too part of the stem. PGerm. ha:na (cf. Dor ke:nos "yon") > ON
hann "he" etc. Where's the "in" in that?

And subtract 'a', as in 'endingless locative', and the -n is exposed
and > -r.


Torsten