Re: But where does *-mi come from?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
> > > > PIE nominative is part endingless, part has -s, most likely
> from
> > > the
> > > > deictic *so. The PIE nominative might therefore have been a
> pre-
> > > PIE
> > > > absolutive.
> > >
> > > That is non sequitur.
> >
> > Erh, how so?
>
>
> Nothing is clarified if the nom.sg. marker *-s is identified with
> the initial consonant of one of the allomorphs of the stem

variation

> *so-/*to-. And even if so: *so is nominative, *-s is also
> nominative; how can that be construed as an indication that the IE
> nominative was earlier something else? We need a positive

argument,

> not just a smokescreen.
>

Now you got me confused; when and where did I say that -so was added
to the nominative at the time it was something else? I believe it
was added after; believing otherwise and even construing that to be
an indication that the nominative once was something else would make
absolutely no sense, so why do you impute that to me?


Torsten