>
> > > In other words, nothing stands in the way of PIE being
descended
> > from
> > > an ergative language with absolutive in *-Ø, and allative in *-
> m,
> > and
> > > with the verb agreeing with the absolutive (what the verb
agreed
> > with
> > > in the transitive sentence we will never know, since that
> sentence
> > > type has gone extinct).
> >
> > You are deriving the syntax that used the -m about the object
from
> > an antipassive construction, since only that justifies the use
of
> > your presumed absolutive *-s and your presumed allative *-m used
> of
> > the object. If you are so sure, please tell us, where is the
> > antipassive marker in IE?
>
> That's a problem, I admit.
Come to think of it:
If PIE and PFU intransitive and transitive sentences originate in
plain and antipassive constructions, respectively, then
1) PIE would have two types of conjugations, and
2) the oldest of them would be used in intransitive sentences, the
youngest in transitive ones.
1) is true for PIE. 2) is not
But:
In Hungarian there are two conjugations, one for intransitive
sentences and transitive ones with indefinite object:
-ok
-sz (= -s)
-Ø
-unk
-tok
-nak
and one for transitive sentences with definite object:
-om -em
-od -ed
-ja -i
-juk -jük
-játok -itek
-jak -ik
Compare the former with the PIE perfect:
-x
-tx
-Ø
and the latter with the mi-conjugation
-m
-s (< *-t?)
-t
I left out the plural. Sanskrit has
-ma (not exclusive to perfect)
-a (total mystery)
-ur (not exclusive to perfect)
Hittite has no separate hi-plural.
Torsten