Re: The Hoffmann suffix, or?

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

>
> --- 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.
>
>

Another candidate for this "extended hetroclitic" paradigm -i, -o:,
-en(-), -er(-) :

why,
who,
where,
when

cf German 'wo', Dutch 'wie' "who"

And another
epi (Greek),
apo (Greek),
over,
oben (German)

I should quote the reconstructed PGerm. forms; unfortunately I have
them only for NGerm.


Is this spurious? I know of course that the forms in -n once were
longer, but so are the forms in -n- in the heteroclitic paradigm;
they might have been reconstructed.


Torsten