--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <G&P@...> wrote:
> >"A curious feature of the Vedic language is that the noun which is
> >logically the object of the infinitive is placed in the same case
as
> >the infinitive, so that "to see the sun" is expressed 'dr.s´áye
> >sú:rya:ya', lit. "for seeing, for the sun";
>
> Similar (not parallel) constructions occur in Latin and Greek.
Latin
> especially avoids the abstract in favour of the concrete, so when
a verbal
> adjective of any kind would be in an oblique case with a noun
object, the
> noun takes that case, and the verbal adjective remains merely an
adjective
> agreeing with it. But what was your point?
Check this site:
http://members.pgv.at/homer/INDOEURO/syntax.htm
Alscher notes (but for a different purpose) that several nominal and
verbal endings seem similar, and proposes they once co-occurred in
specific noun-verb sentence constructions. Interestingly, the
corresponding forms match semantically what one would expect to co-
occur in constructions in a language, eg dative + passive, as in the
example from Sinhalese. Now the question is, even if they do match,
why should they be fitted out with a similar ending, that doesn't
seem necessary in Sinhalese? Solution: look for a noun + verb
construction in IE with matching suffixes. Answer: ablative absolute
and infinitive + object constructions.
>
> >Infinitives were once verbal nouns.
> Yes. What is your point?
That turns infinitive + object constructions into verbal noun +
object constructions. If the -tó- participle in the ablative
absolute was once a verbal noun in -t-, I have brought the two
constructions on a common formula (the remaining difference is that
one is subject + verbal noun, the other verbal noun + object).
> >Latin facio: can be construed with an infinitive.
However, ...'facio' is
> >construed with a dependent
> >clause without any conjunction,
>
> Yes, that's not uncommon. The verb after facio will be
subjunctive.
> What's the point?
I suspected the mi-conjugation has its origin in a dependent
construction, in other words its endings are those of participles or
verbal nouns. A mi-conjugation finite form (-nt) where one expects
an infinitive (or verbal noun) strengthens my suspicion. This is the
old idea that the -nt- of the 3rd pl. is identical to the -nt- of
the present participle (also a type of verbal noun).
Torsten