Re: The Hoffmann suffix

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

>
> --- 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.
>

And suppose some language wants to look more modern and throw out
the old -er locative endings (that's how the user's will see them)
and replace them with the proper -i :
*mat-er, *bHrat-er -> *mat-i, bHrat-i
Nice new nominative.


Torsten